It is also deductive, so the conclusion is the only possible one that could be deduced give the premises. Therefore, it is theoretically strong. Anselm proposed in the Proslogian that the existence of God was true for him by the virtue of faith and logical necessity. He proposed a reductio ad absurdum argument that aimed to demonstrate he impossibility of denying God’s existence. His first form of the argument runs as follows: (P1) God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (P2) If God exists in the mind alone (in intellect) then a greater being can be conceived (in re) (P3) God to be the greatest being, has to existing the mind and in reality, otherwise another being would be greater than God.
Furthermore experience is one of, if not the, principle way of gaining knowledge and forming ideas. It helps people form concepts and especially form ideas that would not otherwise be formed. Rene Descartes argued that some ideas were innate and he attempted to prove this with a deductive argument in which if all the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. Through this he convinced himself that God was real and seeing as only God could have implanted the idea of God into him that it must be innate. This is a counter to Locke’s argument but I feel it is a poor one as the premises are not certainly true they are based on falsehoods especially ones about God being the perfect being; that just depends what you believe.
Aquinas generalizes everything in the universe based on the small amount of things he has actually seen or experienced. These generalizations should not be made without strong evidence. It can also be argued that not taking your surroundings into account whilst considering the universe is a huge error of over simplification, which makes the argument of induction seem week. David Hume however had a very strong empiricist view on the universe and can say that the assumptions based on what’s around us can only be applied to the present and do not provide any information on the past or future of the universe. Bertrand Russell also put forth the argument that the universe is a brute fact and it created itself.
Examine the view that the cosmological argument provides an explanation for the world and is a trustworthy basis for belief in God? (21) The cosmological argument is an à posterioriargument based ultimately on the existence of the cosmos, and the indication it leads to a supreme being generally identified as God. The existence of the universe, the argument claims needs an explanation or a cause, the only appropriate cause for this could be God, this argument is based on experience rather than theoretical logic. Aristotle claims ‘if there is movement and change then there must be an unmoved mover’ although there is one huge problem with this, why does God have no cause? Most scientists argue that "God" is not a scientifically proven cause, whereas Aristotle would argue that God is ‘a remote and unchanging being who allows his world to be changeable so that it can gradually move towards the perfection which he already enjoys.’ A further fault with this would be the principle that the universe can’t explain its own existence, Why is it here at all?
Hume was an empiricist, and therefore believes that for something to exist, there must be evidence that can be accessed by the senses. As Descartes' argument is an a priori argument, there is no empirical evidence to support his definition. Davies agreed that existence can be derived from a definition. Davies claimed that both arguments misuse the language of the argument. For example, Descartes' argument states that 'God IS a being with all perfections' and
As a further definition, Mackie posits that an objective moral value has the quality of ‘ought-to-be-pursued-ness’, it is something one should or ought do because it contains an inherently normative aspect. If Mackie’s argument is to succeed, it must prove that this supposed normative aspect has no existence within any act in itself, but has its origin in the agent of said act, and as such, all moral claims are false. Mackie’s exposition of moral relativism comes in the form of two main arguments, the first being his ‘argument from relativity’, the second, his ‘argument from queerness’. It is with the argument from relativity that I shall be here concerned. The argument from relativity is based around the purely ‘descriptive’ idea that it is an empirically observable fact that there seems to be
However, Goodness is something that Plato has never properly established what The Form of the Good exactly is but we recognise it because we understand how they correspond to our intuitive knowledge of the Form of the Good. On the other hand, the physical inanimate objects are the least important of the Forms because they encourage people to accept things at face value and not look belong their senses. The Forms come from a world of perfection which are illuminated by The Form of the Good which is at the top of the hierarchy and is the source of which all the other Forms stemmed from. Gaining knowledge of The Good means that you will then be able to develop a further awareness and understanding of the other Forms. A clear example of this would be in Plato’s analogy of The Cave.
In “The Accidental Universe”, Alan Lightman illustrates how the role of science has been explaining and reasoning the unknown by methods of fundamental causes and principles. However, physicists are taking a new approach and Lightman argues this classic role may be diminishing. Recent developments in cosmological findings have led premier physicists to accept a new theory, known as the Multiverse Theory. The multiverse theory proposes that our universe is only one of a nearly infinite number, all with varying unpredictable and uncalculable properties. This theory has confronted many physicists with decisions that challenge conventional wisdom and this “fork in the road” has the potential to radically change the modern day fundamental physics.
Anselm’s Ontological Argument The philosopher Anselm of Canterbury’s ontological argument debates the existence of God to be very much true. Anselm concepts God as a being in which nothing greater can be conceived. He also iterates that this being is too the greatest that one can possibly imagine. Therefore, for God to be the ideal concept of perfection, he must too in fact exist in reality and not just the mind, as in the understanding. An atheist, whom may not believe that God actually exists in reality, surely understands the concept of what God is so he then exists in his understanding.
This makes the argument seem more valid due to the fact it coincides with science which is seen to be very factual. Ockham's razor also provides a strength for the cosmological argument due to the fact this argues the simplest reason is often the most plausible, as a God would be the simplest answer to how the universe started it gives support to the argument. However the argument also has a number of weaknesses and has a few people that disagree with it. Firstly Immanuel Kant a German Philosopher argued that although the idea of cause and effect is true within our sense of experiences we can make no claim on this on something we never experienced such as the start of the universe. He also argues that as no one has ever experienced God as he is transcendent we could not know about him or experience him.