Godel's Argument For The Existence Of God

The famous William Paley has a different ontological argument within his text Natural Theology. The title of the reading gives insight to the theory, which focuses on something called natural design. The writing is based on an intricate and extensive analogy between the man made and the natural. For instance, Paley describes a man made watch in great detail. This intense detail sets the notion that each piece must have been put in place by someone, whom we can infer is a watchmaker. He then compares this to the intricacy of nature, which must have been made by a supreme diety. Such complexity could not have come about by chance. Only the most

Where the statement is true, mark T. Where it is false, mark F, and correct it in the space immediately below.

Descartes’ ontological argument is an echo of the original ontological argument for the existence of God as proposed by St. Anselm in the 11th century. To illustrate the background of the ontological argument, Anselm’s argument works within a distinct framework of ontology that posits the existence of God as necessity by virtue of its definition. In other words, for the mind to conceive of an infinite, perfect God, ultimately implies that there must indeed be a perfect God that embodies existence, for perfection cannot merely exist as a mental phenomenon. God is, according to Anselm, self-evident in the mind. Criticisms to this argument can be found in Anselm’s contemporary, Gaunilo, who argues that such an argument can be used to - put

Indicate whether each sentence below is TRUE or FALSE. If the sentence is false, change the underlined word to make the sentence true.

TRUE/FALSE. Write 'T' if the statement is true and 'F' if the statement is false. (2 points total)

To embark, Pascal’s Wager attempts to show non-believers that “it is in one’s best interest to believe in God” through a cost-benefit analysis. It examines the consequences of believing or not believing in God if he does or does not exist. It states: “If one believes in God and He exists, one will earn eternal bliss. If one does not believe in God and He does exist, one will suffer eternal damnation. If one believes in God and He does not exist, one suffers minimally and finitely (i.e. loss of time). If one does

Pascal’s wager states if we believe in God and He exists, we have everything to gain, eternal happiness and truth in Heaven. If we believe and He does not exist then we will neither gain or lose anything. If we do not believe in God and He exists then we will receive an eternal punishment in Hell. If we do not believe and He does not then we will have neither gain or lose anything. Either receiving an infinite reward in heaven or gaining and losing nothing is clearly preferable to either

Throughout Proslogion Anselm defends his argument that “God is which nothing greater can be thought” by providing key elements. Anselm proposes that one cannot imagine a god that is greater, and even non-believers have a conception of the western god. Anselm asserts that since everyone has an understanding of god in their mind, then god exist in reality. This paper will evaluate some of the main key elements that Anselm uses to prove that the ontological argument is correct in Proslogion. I contend that Anselm does not exhibit proper terminology and provides vague statements and therefore his argument that “God is which nothing greater can be thought” is invalid.

Pascal’s wager is famously one of the most attractive arguments as to why rational agents should believe in God. Simplified, it states that given the advantages and disadvantages of believing or not believing in God, it is better

A) A true understanding of meaning requires extensive knowledge of a topic beyond what is in the words, sentences, and paragraphs.

Also referred as the No Statement. it’s a universal proposition that denies something of all members of a class. No S (Subject) are P (Predicate). In light of universal negative, there are areas where you have things that are both S and P because all the statement saying is that there are no things that are both S and P so we can shade the area to show that there is nothing there.

Pascal's Wager, is a common argument in favor of religious belief. It says "you should believe in God, because if you are right, you go to heaven, and if you are wrong, you lose nothing. But if you don't believe, and you are right, you gain nothing, but if you are wrong, you go to hell. Therefore, no matter how unlikely God's existence may be, you should believe.”

It would appear to be a safer bet to believe in God, because one would not have to worry about eternal damnation. Finite material luxuries cannot compare to eternal life. Pascal’s wager could scare some people into believing in God; however, there is a problem with it. One would choose to believe in God for their own benefit, rather than for the love of Christ. The belief could be pretended, and the person would treat eternal life as a reward and a way to avoid damnation, rather than following Christ genuinely. In John 14:23, Jesus says “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with

universe to exist. The only thing capable of doing so would be a supreme being, such as God. This proof also agrees with science. Most scientists today believe that it was the Big Bang that created the universe. It is very possible that it was God that created the

The philosophical arguments presented in this document are not of religious text, nor scientific observation or established fact. Rather the premise of this God proof is bring together and share the various theories on which other God proofs have established foundations. I have heard it quoted that “Philosophy goes where hard science can 't, or won 't. Philosophers have a license to.” Therefore, with this in mind, I attest that it is more than problematic to construct an argument authenticating the unequivocal proof of the existence God. If nothing else this may be food for thought.