For Anselm, God cannot not exist. Descartes supported Anselm in his book ‘meditations’ and developed Anselm’s argument particularly in terms of necessary being. He based his argument for God’s existence on the idea that God is a ‘supremely perfect being’. Descartes believed that we can conclude that God exists, because existence is a predicate of a perfect being; therefore God must exist to avoid being self contradictory.
Religious Language is meaningless. Discuss. Religious Language goal is not to determine whether God does or does not exist it is to help explain God in a meaningful way. You have the traditional view of using specific Religious Language which for years has been used to describe God however you also have people like the Logical Positivists who were a group of philosophers who were primarily concerned with the truth contained in statements we can make, or in other words, with what can be logically posited, or stated. And then philosophers such as R.M Hare, Paul Tilich and Aquinas, arguing that Religious Language is meaningful, however I will be arguing both sides of the arguments, coming to a conclusion against the statement.
The ontological argument is the argument attempting to prove the existence of God. St. Anselm and Descartes wrote versions of this argument. Anselm, an 11th century bishop, defined God as 'That than which nothing greater can be thought'. He claimed that even a fool (the atheist) could understand the concept of that than which nothing greater can be thought. The actual existence of this being is a greater thing than merely a concept or understanding.
“So where does this leave thee philosophers, the scholars and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:20-21 New living Translation). In the following verses it is stated that God saw in his wisdom that the world would never know him through human wisdom. Human wisdom is limited, because its bases off of prior knowledge and instinct, the wisdom of the world from philosophers, scholars, Greeks, Jews, and Gentiles is foolish to God.
Outline two key objections to the Ontological Argument and explain the responses made to them. The ontological argument was first introduced by Anselm in the ‘Prosologian’. It is an a priori argument as it is not based on empirical evidence but id deductive and analytic in that it allows one to use logical reasoning to reach a logically necessary conclusion which, in theory, cannot be disputed. Anselm defines God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ (TTWNGCBC) and states that everyone, theist or not, can accept this definition. He argues that ‘the fool’ in Psalm 53 can conceive of God but fails to believe he exists.
As a fellow Christian monk at the time, it was probably the right thing to do as not every Christian views everything the same. By providing this constructive criticism, he indirectly helped Anselm strengthen it. Nevertheless, Anselm saved his argument by giving it a “second form”. He included the words contingent and necessary. An island is a contingent being and cannot be compared with the necessary being that is God as it isn’t a reasonable comparison.
Situation ethics is a Christian approach in dealing with ethical problems and moral choices. Joseph Fletcher, who published his theory in his book ‘Situation Ethics’ in 1966, primarily developed the theory. The theory is teleological due to its belief that actions have no intrinsic value. Instead, the theory focuses on one intrinsic good, agape, the Greek word for self-sacrificial, impersonal love. Agape is believed to love as God loves and Fletcher described it as ‘an attitude not a feeling’, therefore separating it from all other forms of love.
The purpose of the resurrection was not to prove that Christ was who He claimed to be rather it was necessary. A sign like raising Lazarus was not for any purpose except to help those who doubted as Thomas did to believe. [1]The apostle Paul went so far in emphasis as to argue that if there is no resurrection, there is no Gospel. All that we teach and preach today would be pointless if it had not been for the resurrection, unlike a “sign” that was not necessary for our salvation. I am not saying this because of the importance of Christianity, I am simply pointing out a fact of the difference in the two.
For starters, Antigone does not care about the law when she feels the law is wrong. Second, she has the impression that Creon is trying to play god and she makes it known when she tells him “Sorry who made this edict? Was it god? / Isn’t a man’s right to burial decreed / By divine justice? I don’t consider your / Pronouncements so important that they can / Just…overrule the unwritten laws of heaven.
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.