Ontological Argument For God's Existence

in a world of imperfection proves his existence. God is also the highest conceivable idea of

“The problem of evil is often divided between the logical and evidential problems.” At the heart of each problem is the belief that the existence of God and the existence evil are incompatible. They present an “either/or” dilemma: either God

This essay features the discussion of the problem of evil in relation to the existence of god. Specifically outlining two sections where the problem of evil is discussed from atheist and theistic viewpoint.

But since evil exists, no such being exists. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. Atheists believe this to be a problem because they say that the first and second premises contradict each other, therefore proving the existence of God false. God, as we know it, is a perfectly good God. Since this God is perfectly good and all-powerful, then we assume he would eliminate evil whenever/wherever it is present. While this does hold a strong standpoint against theists, they can come back with an argument that basically states that evil can be allowed if it gives way to the opportunity of a greater good coming from that

To apprehend God is akin to apprehending truths of mathematical nature; they are found within the contents of the mind and are ontologically and logically true. Further, mathematical truths have ‘essences’ which necessitate their existence; for example, the fact of three angles equalling two right angles is essential to the existence of the triangle. It is what makes the existing thing what it is. As for the idea of God, Descartes writes, “existence can no more be separated from the essence of God.”. Because God is defined as perfect, it then follows that God must therefore exist, as existence is itself a perfection. In other words, perfection is existence, and to not exist would be less than perfect; therefore, the ontological argument argues for necessity of God’s existence by virtue of his perfect essence.

In this paper, I will break apart J. L. Mackie’s stern defense of the logical problem of evil, which he uses to suggest the God does not exist. I will attempt to defend the notion that both God and evil, in the form of human creation, can exist in the world by way of suggesting that freewill is the answer. Furthermore, I will strengthen the argument for freewill against Mackie’s defense, which suggests that the argument of freewill also compromises the Omni-three nature of God. In part, I will back freewill by using Mackie’s own logic against him. In its totality, I will build up a strong force against the logical problem of evil, leaving room for both the existence of human formed evil and God in this world under the

The argument over the existence of God is one that has been argued for centuries. In Evil and Omnipotence1, J.L. Mackie argues that an all-good, all powerful God is logically conflicting with the existence of evil, as the very reality of evil is enough to provide an argument against the existence of God. A form of his argument can be stated as: 1. If God exists, God is omnipotent. 2.

This paper will discuss J.L. Mackies logical argument from evil and how in actuality, Alvin Plantinga’s whole argument is an attempt to delegitimize Mackie’s argument. Mackie’s main argument is that these three concepts cannot exist in the world and all be true; evil, gods omnipotence, and gods omnibenevelonce. Mackie’s argument hinges on the idea that evil is real, in which case one of the other two claims about god has to be false. First, one has to understand why evil, omnipotence, and omnibenelovence cannot all exist simultaneously.

The argument of whether God does or doesn’t exist has been a popular philosophical topic and everyday topic around the world for many centuries. It is a very important concept that philosophers have been trying to grasp since the beginning of philosophy. Anselm and Hume both have arguments that give us reasons to believe whether God exists or doesn’t exist. In this paper, I will venture into Anselm’s ontological argument, Hume’s contra-ontological argument, and objections to both of these arguments.

The argument against the existence of God is incompatible with the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God.

This week's reading sparked memories of my childhood where I asked questions like "what is the last number in the world?", or "who is God's mom?", and getting the answer, "infinity", or "he is his own mom", was beyond my understanding. However, the three different arguments for God's existence are not beyond my understanding and although I agree in some measure, these arguments can be easily grasped. Cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments can be summarized as: because "this", God exists. Cosmological arguments state that because the universe exists, so does God. Most philosophers with this argument agreed that the universe did not just appear and something had to create it. Teleological arguments follow the same premise whereas

St. Anselm Ontological argument is known to be the most popular Ontological argument however, it is also known to be the most confusing of them all. When defining God Anselm stated "a being than which nothing greater can be thought." By saying this Anselm makes a very strong claim that

The existence of evil does not prove that there is not a good God. The author makes a very good case against this argument. Evil points to the existence of a good God. God was in existence before there was evil so to say that evil proves there is no God is false. Some people say that evil points away from God’s existence, however, their claim has no support. The fact that we think and speak evil is proof that there is a good God because

A standout amongst the most interesting contentions for the presence of an all-impeccable God is the ontological contention. While there are a few distinct renditions of the contention, all indicate to demonstrate that it is self-conflicting to deny that there exists a biggest conceivable being. In this way, on this general line of contention, it is an essential truth that such a being exists; and this being is the Divine force of conventional Western belief in higher powers. This article clarifies and assesses great and contemporary forms of the ontological contention.

Throughout the course of this essay we shall examine two of the major philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The arguments that we are going to focus on shall be the Design argument and the Ontological argument. We shall compare, evaluate and discuss both the Design (or teleological) argument for the existence of God and the Ontological Argument for the existence of God, as well as highlighting philosophical criticisms of both theories too. By doing so, we shall attempt to draw a satisfactory conclusion and aim gain a greater understanding of the respective theories and their criticisms of each theory.