Throughout this essay I will share with you the ways that the cosmological, design, and ontological arguments are the same yet different from each other. You may find that these arguments are confusing, contradicting, incoherent or just plain unconvincing, once you unpack the truth that God actually does exist. The cosmological, design, and ontological arguments all agree with each other. Each of these arguments is the same in the way that they use unfounded assumptions to prove what cannot be proven. These arguments never get to any particular God.
Explain Anselm’s Ontological arguments and Gaunilos’ challenges The ontological argument claims to demonstrate the statement ‘god exists’ as analytically true meaning that it would be ridiculous or incoherent to think that it was false. Another way of defining it is that once you have an understanding of the meaning of ‘God’ you must recognise that God exists. Anselm puts forward two ontological arguments. His first argument is as follows: This argument is reply to a fool who states that there is no God; this thus gives Anselm his starting point. He states that for the fool to say that there ‘is no God’ the fool has to have an idea of what God is in their minds.
An Examination of the Teleological Argument Its Criticisms and Its Evolution into Modern Times Jonathan Margulis PHIL100 0204 One of the most important questions argued over the ages by philosophers is of the existence of G-d. Nothing is so critical to human history than G-d and religion. This argument has seen bloodshed and death, while man argues with each other about the existence of a superior being that controls the universe, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent G-d. There have been many proponents who argue that G-d exists. Notable philosophers include, Saint Anslem and William Paley, who both argued the existence of G-d. Saint Anslem in his Ontological Argument writes several reasons for the existence.
However, there are so many mysteries in the world that science cannot explain that many people believe something, a much larger force, must be behind it. As a result, many theologians have attempted to prove the existence of God. One of the strongest arguments for the existence of God is the Ontological position. Ontological arguments are “derived from some source, other than observation of the world, so from reason alone.” The first and best-known Ontological argument for the existence of God was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th Century. Anselm’s argument is based on the idea that anyone who hears about God or thinks about God, has an idea of who God is.
This paper is to explain the Ontological argument, followed by the discussion of the objection and the response to the objection, and concludes with my opinion of the actual argument. The purpose of Saint Anselm’s Ontological argument, is to prove through 12 premises that God does exist in reality. Yet through objections, such as Gaunilo’s Parody, it will be shown that the Ontological argument contains flaws. Though there are substantial premises to the Ontological argument, the objection nevertheless rejects them; However, Anselm attempts to salvage his argument by then refusing the parody. The Ontological argument is set up to prove God exists in reality by justifying it as a priori, which in this instance means that God is understood to exist in reality even though Anselm has not witnessed God himself.
Dawkins and Aquinas: Theology Whether it’s argumentative or sentimental, an author always aims to get a significant truth across to the reader. In the novel “The God Delusion,” Richard Dawkins analyzes many theories that theologians have developed about the existence of God and essentially squanders them. Through his unique sense of humor and his idea of “logic”, he gives reasons of why the theories of Thomas Aquinas, and other theories as well, are not well developed and are incorrect. Although he does raise some interesting points in his arguments, he does not address enough issues to completely reject the theories of God’s existence. God has a very broad meaning and the meaning varies from person to person.
He also has some strong opinion on the solutions that the theists have on the resolution to the problem of evil. He states that "If we use the cosmological argument at all, all we are entitled to infer is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe, and this does not entitle us to postulate an all powerful, all perfect, uncaused cause." He also states that theists come up with what he believes is "unintelligent" instances of how we find reasons to believe in God and how he can exist in a world that has evil involved in people's lives. These instances of how evil can exist while GOd can to at the same time include, being punishment for people's wrongs or the consequence of having free will. But here I would like to put in my own opinion much like McCloskey has throughout his article.
Anselm (1033–1109) had opposed an Ontological Argument that one understands God as a being and cannot conceive anything greater because God cannot be understood not to exist. On the other hand, another philosopher named Gaunilo objected Anselm’s Ontological Argument by suggesting that the same style of argument can be used to prove the existence of other entities, such as the idea of a greatest possible island. Although this may be the case, Anselm never got the opportunity to plead his case against Gaunilo’s objection. However, there are numerous biblical evidence to help support Anselm’s argument. Anselm’s Ontological Argument states that one understands that God, as a being, cannot be conceived a greater.
McCloskey is reminding atheists the ways theists argue for their belief in God. He is reminding atheists the reasons they believe that there is no God. He feels atheism is superior to theism; however; I find that his opinions only strengthen my belief that there is a God. Proof, as he states, carries no weight for a theist. He is half correct in his statement as a theist does not believe in the proofs individually, but finds enough evidence in them to form the belief that God does exist; He is the creator of the universe, and He is morally perfect.
The lack of clarification for the term “proofs” does a disservice to McCloskey’s opening. The very things he considers “proofs” to the theist are in most studious circles actually considered “arguments” for the case of theism not “proofs”. It may appear the he is attempting to run it altogether to misdirect the reader into believing something that is not. McCloskey refers to the arguments as proofs and he often implies that they can’t definitively establish the case for God, but the Cumulative Case using the Cosmological Argument, the creator, the Teleological Argument, the intelligent designer and the Moral Argument, that He is a personal, morally perfect being is the best explanation that God exists which is the best explanation for the universe we experience. The claims of science aren’t a hundred percent indisputable or even a hundred percent factual and yet they are still accepted as valid, rationally convincing or highly probable, thus the belief in theism doesn’t have to be irrefutable to be accepted as the same.