Descartes declares he has to determine if there is a God and if he does exist, whether he can be a deceiver. The reason he has to determine the existence of God and what he is, rests in his theories of ideas. This is because we do not know if there is an outside world and we can almost imagine everything, so all depends on God’s existence and if he is a deceiver. “To prove that this non-deceiving God exists, Descartes finds in his mind a few principles he regards as necessary truths which are evident by the “natural light” which is the power or cognitive faculty for clear and distinct perception.” If arguments is presented in logical trains of thought, people could not help but to be swayed and to understand those arguments. Natural light
This leads to the famous objection that he uses the existence of God to establish his doctrine of clear and distinct ideas, and that he uses his doctrine of clear and distinct ideas to establish the existence of God: his argument is circular. It seems that Descartes says that firstly “I am certain that God exists only because I am certain of whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive” but secondly
Anselm stated that God was the greatest conceivable being - being Omnipotent nothing could best him. No other thing in existence has the attributes of God that prove his power: he is Omnipotent, Omniscience and Omnibenevolent. If something possess all of these attributes, then it is far greater than anything else that can be conceived. In effect, God is all powerful because if he wasn’t he wouldn’t be God. If God is all powerful, then he would assume the most powerful state.
Kant then argued that God’s existence in the ontological argument is based on a synthetic statements (‘God is that which than greater cannot be imagined’ and ‘existing is greater than not existing’) therefore more evidence and proof is required in addition to the ontological argument in order to verify the existence of God. The ontological argument also features the idea that God has necessary existence – because his definition is that he is perfect and existing is more perfect than not existing, God must have necessary existence. However Kant opposed this idea and said that if we reject the whole idea of God that his definition is no longer important and thus he
I believe that God is the creator and sustainer of all things, and that we would not even be self aware, let alone aware of right and wrong, if God had not created within us his image, and therefore the ability to make moral distinctions. Without God, I believe that this world cannot explain what morality
However, this would be absurd, seeing as that nothing greater than God can be conceived in anyway. So a being, which nothing greater can be conceived, God, does in fact exist. According to Joel Fienberg’s text, Reason and Responsibility, an Ontological argument is defined as “an argument for the existence of God stating that the very concept or definition of God automatically entails that God exists; because the special nature of the concept, there is no way that God could fail to exist” (pg. 722). This argument is formulated around the idea that God is a being, which no greater being can be conceived.
In this essay I am going to focus on Anselm ontological argument and comment on its strengths and weakness of his argument to prove the existence of God. Anselm’s ontological argument can be seen as a Reductio ad absurdum, which means it is a logical argument that aims to prove contention by demonstrating that its denial leads to absurdity. Anselm’s argument explains that it is contradictory for someone to accept that God to exist in understanding and not in reality. This is because according to the existence of perfection a doctrine that something is greater if it exists in addition t being thought of, and God is greater than which nothing can be thought therefore He has to exist in both understanding and reality. The argument goes like this: 1.
Anselm displays his argument in two parts, the first part being based on a deductive argument; if the premise is true then the conclusion is also true, it claims that existence is greater than non-existence. The second part of the argument claims that necessity is greater than contingency. From this Anselm came to the conclusion that God must exist In Proslogion 2, Anselm claims that existence is greater than non-existence. According to Anselm “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived” God is greater than any being a human can imagine, there is nothing that can be greater than God. Following that, Anselm gave an example of a painter and his painting, this example went on to prove that existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind, if the painter imagines the painting in his mind, it will not be as great as the painting that will exist in reality when he paints it.
Anselm’s Ontological Argument The ontological argument is an argument, which is used to distinguish two types of justifications, and is independent of experience. Ontology comes from two Greek words “ontos” meaning being and “logos” meaning theory, therefore ontology is the theory of the universe and all there is in it.. Anselm begins his argument by defining God as ‘Something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought’, he continues by saying that this definition of God is understood by all even the fool. Anselm understands God as being the greatest conceivable being. In the understanding everyone or anyone believes that there is a being “than which none greater can be thought”, no one could conceive of something greater than the greatest possible being. If God does not exist, though, then something can be imagined that is greater that God, namely a God that does exist.
In the Whether God Exists article, Mr. Aquinas states, “The existence of God can be proved in five ways”(1). One argument that Aquinas makes that I believe is a very strong argument, and seems very logical, is the one in which he states that everything is taken from “possibility and necessity.” He goes on to explain God must exist, because if nothing had ever existed in the world, then it would not be possible for anything to exist today. He then goes on to explain, “If at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist.” Furthermore, he then concludes that God must then be the cause of the existence of everything. Although this argument might seem a little weak to some people, I personally believe that it does make a whole lot of sense. Furthermore, in the article, Aquinas states that if God exists, he is considered to be “Infinite Goodness.” It also states, “If god existed then there would be no evil discoverable, but there is evil in the world.” I believe that this is a good argument made against God because it is so true.