It is also deductive, so the conclusion is the only possible one that could be deduced give the premises. Therefore, it is theoretically strong. Anselm proposed in the Proslogian that the existence of God was true for him by the virtue of faith and logical necessity. He proposed a reductio ad absurdum argument that aimed to demonstrate he impossibility of denying God’s existence. 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.
b. Dostoyevsky points out the terrible suffering and cruelty there is in the world. How might that undermine Pascal’s argument? “The Wager” by Pascal is a reading about the risk of choosing between the existence of God and the nonexistence of God. Pascal argues that people will have everything to gain if they choose to believe in the existence of God but they will lose nothing if they do believe and are wrong. I disagree with Pascal’s argument and I do not think it is a good one.
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.
Mediation IV The existence of God is clear to Descartes. Descartes says “I conclude so certainly that God exists, and that my existence depends entirely on Him in every moment of my life” (73). So since he knows God exists, he must decide if God deceives him or not, and if not how is it that Descartes makes mistakes. Descartes makes this clear by talking about what God has given him, including his faculty, which means any of the powers or capacities possessed by the human mind, free will, and based on his judgment. Descartes wonders if God deceives him or not.
And then philosophers such as R.M Hare, Paul Tilich and Aquinas, arguing that Religious Language is meaningful, however I will be arguing both sides of the arguments, coming to a conclusion against the statement. A.J Ayer famously came up with the Verification Principle which states that any statement must be verified against valid evidence. He made a statement saying ‘A statement which cannot be conclusively verified cannot be verified at all. It is simply devoid of any meaning’. And so Metaphysical claims such as ‘God is omnibenevolent’ are meaningless, the Statements they did find acceptable were analytic statements, which are true by definition and those which are synthetic, which is confirmed through the senses.
Also he believes that if you asked someone who doesn’t believe in God what their definition of God was, then it would also be something along the lines of this. He then later goes on to say that even if you don’t believe God to exist, then he must exist through this definition. This is because if God is the greatest being, and an atheist also defines him like this, then in order to be the greatest being he must also exist in reality, as it is greater to exist in reality than just the mind. Anselm then uses an analogy of a painter and a painting to help people understand this concept further. He says that when a painter plans his work before he starts it, then he has an idea in his head of what it will end up looking like, however because he hasn’t painted it yet it doesn’t exist.
The relationship between a theistic God (considering there is one) and morality cannot be explained in simply a few sentences. One may immediately come to the conclusion that God decides what is moral and immoral. This is known as Divine Command Theory which says that morality is dependent on God’s commands. However, this gives rise to the other side that says an action is moral because God approves of it. This is known as the Autonomy thesis which says that morality is not dependent on God’s commands.
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.
Flaws Within the Flawless As an inherently flawed element, human nature will continuously battle with right and wrong, and failure will persist without guidance. Dostoevski highlights this conclusion in his work The Grand Inquisitor. According to the Grand Inquisitor, the most important aspects of our human nature are the inability to handle freedom and a yearning for a miraculous being. In his approach to governing these aspects, the argument he defends that Christ’s rejection of the temptations has permanently hindered human nature may appear true. However, the Grand Inquisitor’s rejection that the nature of man has potential to change when we accept Christ as our savior highlights the weak link in his argument.
However living an examined life will not only better yourself but will help those around you and guarantee your safety in heaven. I take into consideration Pascal’s wager when agreeing with an unexamined life is not worth living. Pascal argues “If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing”, which is placing the safe bet that you if God did not judge you than you would have not lost anything, although I do not agree with this completely. To live an examined life is to carry yourself in a manner in which you know you will be judged by God after death. God’s decision is to send you to either hell or heaven, and the conduct of your life determines where you will spend eternity.