Aquinas argued that the definition of God cannot be comprehended by humans. As humans are finite, and God is infinite, it is impossible for humans to make an accurate definition of God. Another issue with the ontological argument is its problems with proving existence just from a description. David Hume claimed that it was impossible to derive existence from a definition. Hume was an empiricist, and therefore believes that for something to exist, there must be evidence that can be accessed by the senses.
Aquinas also presented an objection to Anselm’s ontological argument. He argued that the ontological argument is invalid as we cannot define God ‘for the human mind does not have an intuition of the essence of God’. Aquinas rejects that there can be
He is almost certainly sure that no God exists, but says that he would change this view if he were confronted with empirical evidence that suggested otherwise. However, Dawkins’s declaration that he is not a fundamentalist could be questioned by examining other parts of his book. Dawkins seems to focus more on the evidence that religion lacks opposed to the evidence that his evidence-based worldview contains. He also holds Darwinism in a very high esteem. One might say that Dawkins’s view of Darwinism is a strict set of basic ideas and principles, embodying the definition of fundamentalism.
Response to “ On Being an Atheist" PHIL 201 March 1, 2015 Response to H.J McCloskey's “ On Being an Atheist” Have you ever questioned God's existence? Have you ever questioned how the universe was made? Did it evolve or was it created? In the article “ On Being an Atheist” written by H.J McCloskey, he brings forth an argument of God's existence as well as offers reasons why we should believe in God. He offers “proofs” or arguments as to why belief in God should be non existent.
Stacey Snyder Professor McMichael Introduction to Philosophy April 08, 2014 Paley’s Teleological Argument In this paper, I will be discussing Paley’s teleological argument for the existence of God. This is a valid argument but in my opinion it is not enough to prove the existence of God. I believe that even if all the premises are true and they relate to the conclusion, which they do, that the argument can still be proven wrong by other theories. Paley’s teleological arguments, also called the design argument, attempts to prove that God exists by proving that God created the earth and created humans. Paley’s version of the argument is commonly recognized by the “watchmaker” analogy which is as follows.
Assess the claim that the universe provides no evidence for the existence of an omnipotent god’ 35 marks It is often claimed by philosophers that the universe provides no evidence for the existence of an omnipotent god due to the fact there are flaws in this argument. Firstly, the idea of god being omnipotent, simply means that god would be ‘all-powerful to do anything that is possibly logical to do’, which is an idea explored by Aquinas. This idea would solve problems created by Dawkins who suggested the idea that god being omnipotent is incoherent. Yet by suggesting that god is all powerful in things that is logical would mean that he would not do illogical such as change the past of change what humans believe is fact such as 2+2=4. Therefore both Aquinas and Dawkins would suggest that the God could in fact be an omnipotent being as it is still logical for him to be so.
Analyse the essential ideas in the Ontological Argument The Ontological (meaning ‘concerned with being’) argument is the only a priori argument for the existence of God. This means that it does not rely on the evidence of our senses for its premises or conclusion. It works by logical stages, which is self evidently true or logically necessary. This is one of its major strengths. It is also deductive, so the conclusion is the only possible one that could be deduced give the premises.
In view of the PointeCast presentation, theistic arguments determine the best explanation for and not proof of, God’s existence, while considering the complexity and cause of the universe; and morality. The classical arguments - ontological, cosmological, teleological and moral all add up together to present the best explanation for God’s existence. The goal is not to prove God’s existence, but to give strong arguments that ultimately provide the best explanation for what surrounds us in the universe. This is a minimalistic approach to the argument of God’s existence in that there is no description of God’s personal characteristics, no personal experience or relationship with God at this point, just that when compared to other explanations such as naturalism, the combination of the ontological, cosmological, teleological and moral arguments support there is a God with the best
A true analogy of how people sometimes attempt to justify their denial of God's existence or an excuse for why they neither believe nor disbelieve. But the truth of the matter is that, "We are in no position to draw up maps of God's psychology, and prescribe limits to His interests. 2. I am a man/woman of facts. I believe in science and matter not miracles and blind faith!
As with all debates, however, there is more than one side, and I am going to present my arguments as rebuttals for McCloskey. According to McCloskey, We can’t say that there is a necessarily existing being that is the cause of the universe. There are a few issues with this idea. First, to say that an uncaused cause would not exist would be faulty. If you are to look at the universe and say that there was no cause, it just is and always has been, then you are making the point of an uncaused cause.