The argument for the existence of God that I found most compelling was the argument from design, also known as the “theological argument.” The reason that I resonated with this argument so well is that it could be used by both sides of the debate for the existence of God. Supporters of this argument claim that due to the design of everything in the natural world and how well all things interact with one another, this clearly points that there is a creator that made these things meld so well together, this creator being God. Non-believers argue that the existence of our world is a mere stroke of luck that was created through random chance. They further argue that although the possibility that a world such as ours would come into existence is astronomically slim, due to the universe begin infinite and never-ending, this outcome is much more likely to occur. …show more content…
He claims that if a man playing poker were to deal himself twenty straight hands of four aces in the same game and his opponents were to get mad at him, he could use the following argument in is defense: “what if there is an infinite succession of universes, so that for any possible distribution of poker hands, there is one universe in which this possibility is realized” (Keller, 135). So, it is rather evident that this argument can be interpreted several ways. The ability to be used by both sides of the debate is what ultimately convinced me to expand upon the argument’s validity. Ultimately, I believe that this argument is a rather convincing one that supports the existence of a god or
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 conclusion is there is God. A theoretical proof for the existence of God, then, is only intended to mediate a reflexive awareness of the fact that man always and inevitably has to do with God in his intellectual and spiritual existence, whether he reflects upon it or not, and whether her freely accepts it or not (Sabourin, 1986, p. 32). It is what you believe. For believers, God is the explanation of why there is anything at all: why there is intelligibility, why there is freedom (Brown, 2012, p. 4). You desire to believe in God; you want that in your life. It is probably hard for some people not to believe in God. They may have had disappointments in life, tragedy, or not been taught about God. I think so many people have doubts
Of the three theistic arguments presented by the text, I find the “design”, or the teleological argument to be the most persuasive because unlike the other two arguments (ontological and first cause), the argument’s premises can be supported through observations of the physical world. The ontological and first cause argument are both more based in pure logic and reasoning, and they also can both be easily challenged for the same reason. On the other hand, the design argument focuses less on how the existence of God could be explained in the terms of a “catalyst”, and more how there is a statistically improbable amount of order in our universe (called Maximally Orderly Huge Universe”). Put simply, the design argument states that since there
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.
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
Humans can never know for the certain why the universe was created or what caused it but, we can still create arguments and theories to best explain what might have created the universe. The cosmological argument is another idea to prove the existence of god. Many philosophers debate wheatear the cosmological argument is valid. The cosmological argument starts off quite simply: whatever exists must come from something else. Nothing is the source of its own existences, nothing is self-creating []. The cosmological argument states at some point, the cause and effect sequence must have a beginning. This unexpected phenomenal being is god. According to the argument, god is the initial start of the universe as we know it. Though nothing is
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.
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.
Theories have arisen from many different philosophers trying to explain the existence of God; the Cosmological Argument is one such theory. The Cosmological Argument has been changed and reviewed for years; however, the focus has always stayed the same. The universe is a prime example that there is a God. A simple Cosmological argument states that:
Atheists often insist there is no evidence for the existence of God while maintaining religious faith is fundamentally irrational. This paper will examine the Kalām Cosmological Argument (KCA), demonstrating that it offers strong evidence for the existence of God, thereby providing a rational foundation for the Christian faith.
Chapter four of the Roots of Wisdom describes three primary arguments for the existence of God, these arguments include an Ontological Argument, a Cosmological Argument and a Teleological Argument. All of these aforementioned cases express valid philosophies and rational theories, however they also appear to be incomplete, by that I mean to say, they lack the “hard evidence” in which our scientific community demands as proof that God exists. I could just as easily turn the table in the same direction, demanding that our scientific community present the same “hard evidence that God does not exist, however that course of action would only add to the ambiguous quest for truth and would in the end solve nothing. With that stated, it is my belief
The idea of God, more so than the idea of some substance that is finite/imperfect, has an objective
Throughout this paper I will discuss the argument of Anselms ontological argument for the existence of god. His basis of his argument being an analytical breakdown for the reason fot gods exsistence. While also establishing that Anselms inferences found with his use of deduction and logical means to prove the existence of a higher being are indeed true. In addition I will defend Anselms argument by depicting other people’s objections against his argument. Specifically the argument made by Gaunilo, who disagreed with Anselms argument and tried to use logical reasoning to prove him wrong. Essentially, Gaunilo stated that Anselms use of deduction could be altered and used to prove the existence of any concept by simply using the similar notion that Anselm used to prove the existence of god.
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.