Argument On The Ontological Argument

idea is greater than myself, there must be a perfect being who has caused this

1. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the argument for the existence of God based on religious experience. (18) 2. ‘The argument merely indicates the probability of God and this is of little value to a religious believer.’ Discuss. (12)

Pascal’s Wager is an argument that tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in the existence of the Christian god. Pascal thinks non-theists should believe in God’s existence because if a non-theist is wrong about the existence of God they have much more to lose than if a theist is wrong about the existence of God.

can be the cause of something else and so on and so on. Yet nothing can be the

Many philosophers have posed the question: How can I prove that God exists? Thomas Aquinas attempted to prove the existence of God in a rational way through his Cosmological argument. Aquinas argued that every event as we observe it has a cause and a casual chain cannot be infinite. Therefore, a first cause is necessary and this cause is God. Aquinas’ argument is unsuccessful because it assumes that God is a necessary being, fails to prove that the world is not an infinite chain of events, and undermines the basis of his argument by saying that God is infinite.

Anselm goes on to justify his assumption by using the analogy of a painter. In short, when a painter first conceives of what it is he wants to accomplish, he has it in his understanding but does not yet understand it to exist. He doesn’t understand it to exist because he has yet to construct his painting. His point in general is that there is a difference between saying that something exists in my mind and saying that I believe that something exists. Anselm goes on to introduce another assumption that could be considered a new version of the argument. He tries to show that God cannot possibly exist in the understanding alone by contrasting existing in the understand with existing in reality.

The central problem of this paper that I am going to try to convince my atheist friend is that god existed. I will argue in favor of a higher being by first presenting and evaluating two argument that will be used to persuade my atheist friend. First I will explain Pascal’s argument. Second I will explain one of the arguments of Aquinas’s that is in favor of the existence of god. Then I am going to explain what’s the central difference between the two arguments is. I will conclude by stating whether I was successful in converting my atheist friend.

In Chapter 2 of Anselm's Proslogian, Anselm offers what was later to be characterized as his Ontological Argument, which is an argument for God's existence he felt was so strong that even a fool as is said in Psalms 14:1- "who has said in his heart, 'There is no God'". Anselm's argument is as follows :

The ontological argument was first developed by St. Anselm. In his address, Anselm considered the Fool of Psalm 14, who held the belief that there is no God. He justified that the Fool’s argument was indeed self-undermining. In the ontological argument, Anselm argued that denying that God exists shows that God does exist. He labeled God as a unique perfect being; all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful. In his argument, Anselm draws the distinction between “existing in the mind” and “existing in reality”. The example provided was when a person intends on doing something, it exist in the mind; whereas when a person has actually done something, it exist in reality. However, there are many things that exist only in reality such as the example

In Anselm’s ontological argument of the existence of God, Anselm’s goal is to prove the existence of God by purely logical truths and reasoning (that is, his argument only contains A Priori knowledge). A summary of Anselm’s argument is that, because God exists in understanding, and that God is the supreme being, and that real things are greater than things only existing in understanding, then God must exist in understanding. A formal, numbered argument follows:

Philosophy offers multiple theories and ideas on the existence of God. One of Blaise Pascal’s works is titled Pensées; in this work we find a theory known as Pascal’s Wager. Pascal’s Wager explains that believing in God is the wise thing to do since a Christian believer has everything to gain and nothing to lose. Pascal’s Wager can be considered reasonable if one believes God either exist or does not exist, that there are positive and negative outcomes for both beliefs and believing in God is the rational choice if you use the expected value formula, although the Many-Gods Objection and doxastic voluntarism argue this theory is unreasonable. “Blaise Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist and religious philosopher, who laid the foundation

The debate of the existence of God had been active since before the first philosopher has pondered the question. Anselm’s Ontological Argument was introduced during the 11th century and had stood deductively valid until the 18th century. Then there are the arguments to aim disprove God, such as the Argument from Evil.

In my view, the belief that the mere concept of God carries real existence with it is sound. I would deploy the same argument as a cogent proof of the existence of God.

The vast majority of the contentions for God's presence depend on no less than one exact commence. For instance, the "calibrating" variant of the outline contention relies

I know this because there are many things that people believed on faith long before it was ever proven of even suggested scientifically. One example is the fall of the walls around the city of Jericho. The bible tells us that the hand of God pushed them down. While it is unlikely that it will ever be proven that it was actually the hand of God that did this, recent archeological evidence tells us that something pushed down the walls of Jericho. People believed that this happened centuries before this evidence surfaced. So I say that the notion that matters of faith cannot be demonstrated is absurd.