Reductio Argument

The three main arguments that Crito said to convince Socrates to escape jail are Socrates’ responsible for his sons, the situation where his friends will help him escape, and the just and unjust. Crito argued that if Socrates’ decides to die, he’s just going to betray his sons. If Socrates’ won’t escape the jail, he will hurt Crito’s reputation.(Crito, 47c)

3. Out of all three arguments for the existence only one of them is based on an a priori knowledge and it is the Ontological Argument. This argument is based on the knowledge that God does

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)

of such arguments is that of St. Anselm from Proslogium of St. Anselm, which states that God is

THE ONTILOGICAL ARGUMENT: A method of proof which uses intuition and reason alone; examines the concept of God, and states if we can conceive of the greatest possible being, then it must exist.

The ontological argument for God’s existence is a work of art resulting from philosophical argumentation. An ontological argument for the existence of God is one that attempts the method of a priori proof, which utilizes intuition and reason alone. The term a priori refers to deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the type of reasoning that proceeds from general principles or premises to derive particular information. The argument works by examining the concept of God, and arguing that it implies the actual existence of God; that is, if we can conceive of God then God exists. However, this type of argument is often criticized as committing a bare assertion fallacy. The bare assertion fallacy is fallacy in formal logic where a premise

The third argument for God’s existence is the ontological argument. This argument is unlike the cosmological and teleological arguments in that it does not argue from evidence in the natural world. Thus, it is not a “cause and effect” argument.

Another attempt to prove the problem of evil is the evidential version of the argument. This argument attempts to show inductively that the existence of God is not likely. This form is much

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.

The four classic arguments for the existence of God are the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Moral Argument, and the Ontological Argument. The Cosmological and Teleological arguments are a posteriori arguments, whereas the Moral and Ontological arguments are a priori arguments. The Cosmological Argument argues that the world had to have a first cause, and this first cause is an independent being, or God, that did not need a cause itself. The Teleological Argument argues that an intelligent creator or God designed the world in such a complex way. The Moral Argument cites God’s existence as the cause of morality.

In The Five Ways, from Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas gives the five ways in which an individual can prove that there is a God. In his arguments, Aquinas uses a posteriori and inductive arguments to help prove the existence of God. An a posteriori argument is an argument that uses statements that you cannot know through pure reason like the statement dogs are descendants of wolves. In contrast, an a priori argument is an argument that consist of statements you can know through pure reason like 2 is the square root of 4. Likewise, an inductive argument is an argument that is an attempt to provide premises that make likely the truth of the conclusion, which is used in Aquinas argument. In contrast, a deductive argument is an argument that attempts to provide premises that guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

The second argument is for the notion that the existence of God can be demonstrated. It states that everything has a cause. He claims that by using the theory of cause and effect we can demonstrate the existence of God. If we say that every effect has a cause, we can go further and further to infinity. But because of our own logic, we know that this is not true. We know that it must end somewhere. That somewhere is a first cause, and that cause is God. This is very similar to the idea of the unmoved mover. He goes on to say that through the effects, we can demonstrate that God does exist, but we cannot know what God is like.

Many writers refer to this argument as the uncreated creator proof. All things in nature are transitory and thus may exist or not exist. Because nature is time limited things of the world either exist or they do not. Natural things cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Because of that reality, we can reason that at one time nothing temporal existed. Through this line of thinking we can conclude that not all beings exist as contingent beings but there must be a being that exists because of its own necessity. This being is the uncreated creator that we know as God. This uncreated creator brings all

The final crucial proof of the existence of God is Aquinas fourth proof. This proof looks at qualities of humans; all humans possess many different attributes which we consider unique to each individual. This is when standards are formed humans began to have a certain criteria for how or what someone with a given attribute should act or how they should portray themselves. The only way this standard could come into existence is to believe that there is a perfect creation possessing all qualities and expressing them in the most precise and perfect way. This perfect creation is God, the person in which humans get the laws at which the obeyed by. Aquinas five proofs of the existence of God are much more extensive but just looking at the proof of motion and the proof of perfection it becomes unquestionable that there is an almighty creation. This superior creation creates laws at which

One of the rational reasons that I offer as proof of God's existence is exactly because of the impasse of this debate. Given this, the deductive argument/thesis that I pose for the existence of God is: