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.
One of these is it has been significantly more of a challenge to demonstrate that God is not possible. An example of this would be that God is said to have extraordinary power which is omnipotence, but however can God create a triangle with 4 sides, or can he make a round square? This is raising the question of is can God ‘simply’ defy basic rules of logic… The theist under this explanation of God would reply that God is only omnipotent to the greatest possible extent therefore this theist could respond by claiming that God simply cannot do what is logically
According to him, there must be as much reality or perfection in the cause of anything as in the effect. Moreover, he believed that the notion of God represents something so ideal that he could not have been the cause of this idea. I believe that Descartes arguments are not really such convincing because of the following reasons which I would like to point out. We may all come to this point and consider that we all exist; however, it’s not completely true because Descartes had an idea of the perfect being in his mind, but I surely don't have such an idea. Now what am I to believe?
Some philosophers such as Ayer argue that experience cannot provide a stable base for the indication of reality because it is the interpretation of the experience that we are hearing for the experiencer, therefore we can never have concrete evidence that that is how the experience occurred. These criticisms are answered by the Principles of Credulity and Testimony. The principle of Credulity claims that if it seems something is so, one should assume it is true. There is therefore no difference between normal and religious experience. These claims do not prove the existence of God, but they are common enough (25-35% of the population have claimed to be "aware of a presence or power beyond themselves") that they provide a reasonable probability God exists.
Recognising this reaffirms that God is more than we can ever imagine – he is ineffable, can never be described so we cannot say what they are not. Strengths of via negativa are that it allows things to be said about God without implying that the finite (humans) can grasp the infinite (God), it also asserts the claims of revelation, that God is good and then recognises goodness to be a human word and so must be negated by saying too that God is not good to
This essay concerns itself with proving that God does not exist, however my personal belief is that God does exist. The argument against the existence of God based on the existence of evil is outlined as: 1. If God were to exist, then that being would be an omnipotent, omniscient, and Omni-benevolent. 2. If an all-PKG being existed, then there would be no evil.
The roles of the PM are linked to the roles of god but the 2 must not be confused. As the PM is transcendent he cannot interact with the human world as he is the greater entity. Aristotle’s concept of the Prime Mover found its way into the medieval theology of Thomas Aquinas and his cosmological proof for the existence of God. Likewise, Aristotle’s teleological arguments found their way into Aquinas’ Natural Law. An accidental universe is as likely as a caused one There are many modern scientific theories that attempt to grasp why the universe is here, who put it here and who created everything in it.
‘Religion and science will never agree!’ Some people would agree with the statement ‘Religion and Science Will Never Agree’ because; throughout the years there have been many historical disputes due to religion and science. Religious believers have their own view on how the world was created. They believe that God is eternal and infinite. This means that God has no beginning and no end. The word ‘infinite’ symbolises that God is the ultimate creator.
'Boethius was successful in his argument that God rewards and punishes justly' Many philosophers have debated as to the meaning of an eternal God and as to whether this God is fair. Boethius believed that when we say that God is eternal, we mean that God is timeless. However, others reject this concept claiming that God being eternal means that god has no beginning and no end; he has always existed and always will. Boethius taught that God exists outside of time which means he cannot bear any mortal interactions to things which exist within time. Boethius used this theory to illustrate how God is not able to relate to humans as he is not in time with them, nor one of them.
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.