Present and critically assess one version of the ontological argument for the existence of God. (This can be an existing version, such as Anselm’s or Descartes’, or a generic or composite version.) The ontological argument is a priori argument that means that it is based on reasoning and independent of experience. With the ontological argument being a prior it gives a theoretical certainty, like in mathematics the idea that 1+1=2. 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.
All humans have a set of basic beliefs about Gods existence, which determine our views about the existence of miracles. Theists, also known as realists, believe that God literally exists as a real divine being, and this includes the characteristics, which are intrinsic to Gods existence of omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence. A traditional view of theism is also called realism, as they believe God to be a real entity and not just a projection of human imagination. Extreme liberal supporters who believe that God is simply a projected of human imagination are called anti-realists. They say that God does not exist in an objective and real sense; they do not think he is a real human entity existing in the world.
Bertrand Russell also put forth the argument that the universe is a brute fact and it created itself. He believes that there is no more reason to explain this that there is to explain that God is the prime mover
However since we already have an idea of God as this perfect and infinite being, he must exist. Furthermore, since the natural light clears deception as an imperfection as well as not existing, God is a non-deceiver, he exist and is perfect. After the cogito argument and natural light examination of the deceptive God, Descartes discards the hypothesis that God is a deceiver. Since God is all-good, he would not deceive us. For that reason, Descartes introduces the evil demon/genius instead.
Simply put, the fine-tuning argument contends that the universe was designed to ultimately create human beings. Fine-tuning is an argument which is able to contest one of the atheist’s own theories to disprove God. This will be explained in more detail later in this paper. In response to this, McCloskey says the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” As mentioned before, the cosmological argument is but one part of a concurrence for the existence of God. It does not prove God’s existence; it argues that there must be a necessary being which created the universe.
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant raised many objections and criticisms to the ontological argument. In Descartes’ formulation of the ontological argument he states that God is a supremely perfect being and thus has all perfections. He then goes on to argue that existence is a perfection and a supremely perfect being (God) has the perfection of existing. In essence, Descartes argues that existence is a predicate of God. However Kant challenged Descartes argument, he said that an idea of something does not make that something exist.
Socrates suggests Euthyphro must be an expert in religious matters to be willing to prosecute his own father, and Euthyphro agrees: "I should be of no use, Socrates, and Euthyphro would not be superior to the majority of men, if I did not have an accurate knowledge of all such things." (Plato, Euthyphro, Moral Philosophy: Selected Readings) Socrates firmly believes that knowledge only comes when we are able to justify and account for our beliefs so
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.
‘Religious language is meaningless.’ Analyse and evaluate this claim with reference to the verification and falsification debates. I disagree with the statement that religious language is meaningless, but Logical positivist within the Vienna circle applied the idea of the verification principle to religious language, and saw religious language as meaningless. The verification principle is the philosophical movement which claims that language is only meaningful if it can be verified by sense-observation or if it is known as a tautology. And they saw that religious language cannot be empirically tested through the senses, and neither is it known as a tautology so then it is considered as meaningless. Philosophers like Moritz Schlick and others who were supporters of the verification principle, believed that the meaningless of a statement is shown by the way in which you verify it.
Paper #1 The Wager Section 233 Michael Holden Part I- In section 233 of the passage The Wager, Pascal argues through the concept of infinity with respect to numbers, that the idea of the infinite is definite in its existence. He then uses this argument of the fact that the infinite exists to state that god’s existence can neither be proven nor disproven. This uncertainty of god’s existence is the basis for Pascal’s whole wager. Pascal uses this theory of the unprovable nature of god to present a wager. Pascal informs the reader that they must accept this wager; that they cannot deny to take a side.