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. (C) Therefore God must exist both in the mind and in reality. This method of reasoning aims to demonstrate the truth of something by reducing to absurdity the very opposite of what you are trying to prove. In Anselm’s case this would be that God does not exist, which he claims is absurd by means of an argument which he claims is logically necessary. For Anselm, God cannot not exist.
Hick argues that if God had created humanity in his presence then the gap between God and humanity would be so small that it would limit our freedom. Hick calls this knowledge gap between God and humanity ‘The Epistemic Distance’. Hick further explains that if we were created too close to God in terms of knowledge, we would be overwhelmed by him and would worship him for the wrong reasons. Humans are not born
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.
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.
It is not a reliable way. This includes reasoning and making predictions without further testing. Faith is another way that a lot of Christian believers us to seek the truth. The faith based way of seeking the truth is different from the scientific method in that it can answer a lot of questions about the most important truths. (Religious-Science.com 2008) The truths about the purpose of life and that our creator, God wants us to be happy and that he has a plan for each one of us.
Surely and all loving (omnibenevolent) God wouldn’t allow this. Human Evil is where people cause harm to others and create chaos. Why would God create a world that consists of evil and cruelty? therefore Mill questions the idea of an omnibenevolent God, however if it is disagreed that God isn’t all loving then it could suggest that God doesn’t know of our suffering and could mean that omniscience cannot possibly be an attribute of God. Mill would say that if God is omniscient then surely he is aware of our suffering and would therefore intervene in the evil as he loves us all.
He argues that ‘the fool’ in Psalm 53 can conceive of God but fails to believe he exists. Anselm believes in a concept called in re and in intellectu, this involves the idea that if something is in the mind then it will always be greater in reality, for example money or a painting. Anselm applies a method of reasoning called reductio ad absurdum to prove Gods existence and make other possibilities seem ridiculous. Gaunilo of Marmoutier, a contemporary of Anselm, proposed an objection to Anselm’s argument in his work ‘On behalf of the Fool’. Gaunilo argues that just because someone can conceive of something it does not make it a reality and that there is not one way to conceive of God - the very fact that Gaunilo was arguing with Anselm proves that everyone coneives of God differently.
Descartes ontological argument is trying to aims to explain the existence of God in itself. Descartes argument begins with his own definition of God being a ‘supremely perfect being’. He then continues to question and bring out the concept that if something is perfect then in order to fulfil its attributes it must have the attribute and full ability to exist and if God is perfect then he too must have this attributes and therefore concludes, that God must exits. In addition, Descartes extended his argument by stating that “God is the most perfect being possible, so he has all perfections.” It is understood and known that the idea of perfection links into attaining the concept of existence. As the most perfect being, God must exist.
To them, if there is a good side to the world and a bad side to the world, then there must be two gods to keep track of it all. Gnostic believers even present “evidence” defending their position through information found in the secret books of the gnostic gospels (29). Though this argument seems sound, orthodox Christianity is the more popular belief on this subject because the Gnostics were considered ignorantly dualistic; God clearly sent his word through the Bible stating that he is the one and only God that ever was and ever will
Explain Anselm’s ontological argument (25) Anselm uses an a priori argument bases on reason to prove gods existence, underlying all Anselm’s points is the idea that god must exist in reality by his own definition. Anselm begins by pointing out that even fools (atheists) can understand that god is the greatest conceivable being as it is what makes god who he is. However the fool dispute Anselms idea that god exists in reality, the fool is convince that god exists only in our understanding. Anselm says that the fool is silly, if he was only to exist as an idea in our understanding a greater being could be thought of meaning god would no longer be the greatest conceivable being. Therefore God must exist to meet his definition; those who deny