Existence of God

and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of universe. What will be displayed in this essay are the counter-arguments to McCloskey’s criticisms and the attempt to discredit his claims that regard the “comfortable” position that lies within atheism and its arguments. H.J. McCloskey utilizes the

actuality of a divine being the cause of our existence is a topic that has been debated by philosophers for centuries. To this day there is no clear answer as both sides of the argument give reasons to refute the opposing side’s arguments. Ernest Nagel is a well-known philosopher as he is recognized for his works against theism and for supporting atheism in his literary works. In Nagel’s “A Defense Of Atheism” he criticizes the theistic arguments that claim a god is overseeing our world. The ontological

I Thesis The Ontological Argument presented by Anselm is false because of premise two. Anselm argues that God’s existence is provable in a priori, this means that one knows God exists simply by reason alone and therefore does not need any prior experience to know it is true. In the next section, I will explain the premises and defend Anselm’s point. In the third section, I will explain how premise two is wrong. II The Ontological Argument In this section, I will explain the argument. If one accepts

distinct perception by appeal to Gods existence (Descartes AT VII 140 - 141). Instead, such ‘reliability’, is to be assumed (Descartes AT VII 140). The purpose of God existing, and being non-deceptive, was to correct any doubts he might have about memory, in which we remember a clear and distinct perception. Descartes is suggesting that when we remember something perceived clearly and distinctly, we may not, in fact, clearly and distinctly have perceived it; but if God exists and is not

Foreman address the meaning of the word “proof” in the context of questions concerning God’s existence or non-existence. He specifies that in this context, “proof” does not mean as it does in its more natural context, mathematics, a demonstration that within the agreed-on axioms follows necessarily, but rather something else, and nevertheless of value. A “proof” of God, says Foreman, are defeasible, yet have not (yet) been defeated. They are valuable because they offer the best explanation for

by step, leading to the existence of God. He argued for the God’s existence by using evidences based on Anselm's ontological arguments which certainly introduce the idea of God in the mind of any thinking being.

Whether God exists or not has been a question for a long time. Because of man’s interest and lack of knowledge, arguments for the existence of God have been for many years. These arguments are divided into two categories: philosophical and logical. The arguments give us information about the existence of God, but it is people’s choice to believe in God or not. I would like to start this essay with saying that I believe that there is a God above and beyond us all. In this paper I will discuss my religious

It is of course possible that an argument for God's existence could provide some evidence for God's existence, in the sense that the argument increases the probability or plausibility of the claim that God exists, even if the argument does not provide enough support by itself for full-fledged belief that God exists. A proponent of the moral argument who viewed the argument in this way might in that case regard the argument as part of a cumulative case for theism, and hold that the moral argument

4a. Explain Paley's argument for the existence of God (25) William Paley's argument for the existence of God is an important aspect of the Design argument, which argues that the universe is being directed towards an end purpose due to the a posteriori (subject to experience) evidence of an intelligent designer, who is God. This is because it is perhaps arguably the most famous version, and the theory which modern-day theories for the Design argument are built upon. The first version of the

rationalism: that is if someone truly knows something then they could not possibly be mistaken. He goes on to provide solid argument for his ideas. In Meditations he comes to term with three certainties: the existence of the mind as the thing that thinks, the body as an extension, and God as the supreme being. He attests that he came to these conclusions