The Argument For The Existence Of God

1. The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is based on the principle of cause and effect. What this basically means is that the universe was the effect of a cause, which was God. One of the oldest and most well known advocates of the Cosmological Argument was Thomas Aquinas who outlines his argument for the existence of God in his article entitled The Five Ways. The first way in his argument is deals with motion. Aquinas says that in order for something to be in motion something had to move it because it is impossible for something to move without the presence of some sort of outside force upon it. Therefore the world around us, nature, and our very existence could not have been put into motion without the influence of the

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

The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God The ontological argument is an a priori argument. The arguments attempt to prove God's existence from the meaning of the word God. The ontological argument was introduced by Anselm of Canterbury in his book Proslogion. Anselm's classical argument was based on two principals and the two most involved in this is St Anselm of Canterbury as previously mentioned and Rene Descartes.

One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this

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

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.

Does God exist? This question has been in debate for centuries with many opposing views, some arising from philosophers on the same side while others refute Gods existence altogether. However for this particular paper I will be taking the best explanations approach. What I mean by this is I do not have proof of God’s existence but the existence of God is the best explanation for the universe around me. With this statement in mind we will discuss arguments in support of God’s existence as well as philosopher H.J McCloskey’s article On Being an Atheist.

In the Article “On Being an Atheist”, McCloskey refers to the arguments defending the existence of God as “proofs”. He also believes that because none of the arguments can absolutely prove the existence of God, that we should deny them all and the existence of God (McCloskey, 1968). Foreman addresses this dilemma in his presentation “Approaching the Question of God’s Existence.” Foreman states that there is no absolute proof of God’s existence but there are many things in the universe that are best explained by the existence of God. All arguments in the defense of the existence of

The design arguments for the existence of God center on the principle that an intelligent designer, in this case God, has crafted our world so that each item has a purpose and significant meaning. Additionally, the world is a complex and sometimes enigmatic system of elements which work together to sustain life in a way that some argue is unlikely to have occurred by pure chance alone. Therefore, some philosophers credit a divine being as the source of this order and purpose in the universe. Furthermore, William Paley offers a version of the design argument in which he employs simple analogy between a watchmaker and God to demonstrate God’s presence. However, critics of this approach to proving God’s existence object to this simplistic analogy of the origin of natural components in the world and instead argue that an evolutionary perspective better explains the existence of such objects and therefore, for the sake of simplicity, a divine being does not need to remain in the equation. As a result, both the objections of flaws in the format of Paley’s argument and the needless inclusion of God as a designer cannot successfully be refuted by supporters of Paley.

He is not limited by time, as He is outside of it. Thus God must exist

The idea of God, more so than the idea of some substance that is finite/imperfect, has an objective

Many philosophers and theologians have provided varying arguments for the existence of God. These arguments are either a priori, understood independent of worldly experience and observation (Ontological Argument), or a posteriori, dependent on experience and based on observations of how the world is (Cosmological and Teleological Arguments). This paper will focus on the Cosmological Argument, and show that its underlying principle, the Principle of Sufficient Reason, fails to establish it as a sound argument for the existence of God. To accomplish this, I will, first, define the Cosmological Argument and the Principle of Sufficient Reason; then explain the argument, and how it is based on

demonstrated the existence of God. Theist express superiority over Atheist. Atheist condemns Theist for their condescending ways. Atheist do not believe in the power of prayer, and theist argue that when they are told by an theist they will pray for them they are being superficial and not genuine, in fact Atheist believe that theist announce it so often they somehow believe it will have an effect.

Two weeks ago we discussed about “Existence of God” in our class. We had an argument about God and religion. Six arguments for the “Existence of God”, one argument for “The rationality of belief in God”, and one argument “Against the reality of religion”. I didn’t like this topic and the concept of this topic at all. Because God and religion stuffs are entirely personal issue.

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.