Existence Of God example essay topic

Anselm's ontological argument is an explanation that Anselm came up with to prove that God exists. He uses a step by step procedure to persuade you into believing that since we can picture and think of God as the greatest being, then he must exist. In the beginning of his discussion, Anselm asks what is it that we mean when we speak of God. The first thing I think of when I speak of God is the creator of earth, the superior being. Anselm also believes that whence speak of God we are speaking of the most supreme being.

God is said to be greatest imaginable being, not just the greatest being that happens to be around, but the greatest thinkable being. Anselm states that God is a being which none greater can be thought and a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. (23) Anselm continues through his discussion by questioning the difference between what exists in the mind and what exists in the mind and outside of the mind as well. One of the questions that is asked is, Is it better to exist the mind alone or in the mind and in reality.

In my opinion, that is a really easy question to answer but for some reason Anselm feels it is necessary to go into detail. He uses the example of a painter who portrays a work of art in his mind. So which is better The piece of art he has created in his minor the finished product that is within his mind as well as in reality. I hope that everyone will come to the conclusion it is the painting in reality and the mind that is greater. Anselm believed that since God was a being which nothing greater can be conceived, and since it is greater to existing the mind and in reality, then God must exist both in the mind and in reality. To sum it up, Anselm believed that God must be.

A monk named Gaunilo believed there was something wrong with this argument. How does thinking about something guarantee that it exists in reality Gaunilo believed that if the argument were any good, he could setup similar arguments proving the existence of all sorts of things. For example, it seemed to him that if Anselms argument worked, then he ought to be able to prove the existence of perfect island in exactly the same way. Paul Kurtz criticizes Anselm's ontological argument by stating It is surprising that so many philosophers and theologians have been convinced by this argument, for its specious character is readily evident. (37) He believes that just because you have this concept of God in your mind doesn t mean God exist, it just shows that you were taught to believe that.

And what about these people who don t have a concept of God, does that mean there is no God To me thesis a one sided argument and doesn t give you much of a basis to believe any other than what Anselm is pointing out to you. But considering Plato's discussion with Theaetus, it overrides Kurtz and my opinion. It was Theaetus who stated that perception is knowledge, but soon found out that he was entirely wrong from Plato. Plato believed that making judgments was knowledge. To me Anselms ontological argument was a judgment made by himself to share knowledge of what he believed with everyone else. I can t say if it was a true of a false judgment, for that can only be found from experience of being deceased.

2. Thomas Jefferson was principle author of the Declaration of Independence and third president of the United States. As Jefferson applied reason to the field of religion, he concluded that evidence of design in nature is so obvious and extensive that there must be a cosmic designer. (30) Thomas Jefferson's design argument doesn t prove the existence of God conceived as a supremely perfect being because it can t be proven.

There can always be an argument that asks how can God be supremely perfect when there is war, sickness, murder, etc. Jefferson does try to persuade you to have no doubt that God is supremely perfect by blaming all the faults with the world on man, not God. In his eyes God created a beautiful place and wished for it to stay that way, it was man who corrupted everything. He believed that life was just to exquisite and angelic for the world just to exist. The way he speaks of earth makes you see the way he sees.

Just to sit back and think of everything here that exists, it all fits perfectly together. Listening to this passage is what satisfies me the most. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces; the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere; animals and vegetables bodies, examined in all their minutest particles; insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses; it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe, that the is in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. (31-32) I think that I can somewhat believe Jefferson's opinion.

Earth had to be created somehow, and since there must be a beginning to everything why not come to conclusion that God was the beginning. In Kurtz criticism of the design argument it seems to me that he is more focused on the title that God is given. The main point he stressed was how is God all good and all powerful If God is all good, then why all the suffering and pain, and if he is all powerful then why doesn t he stop all the evil Kurtz starts by evaluating the deists point of view. They believeth at since the earth is full of design and order then it must have been a plan or design by someone or something.

The argument that was made to this thought is that its not possible to discover universal order in nature, order doesn t indicate plan or existence of a creator. Nature is often a scene of conflict, chaos, and disorder. (40) And since there is disorder, then isn t it God's fault It is then that Kurtz goes into this whole argument about evil and how does it exist if God is so great and powerful. The deists then say that Evil is only human. (40) Aquinas argument from design differs from the eighteenth century deistic version because Aquinas brings more ideas to the argument of god than does the deists. Aquinas believed thatthere were five ways to go about proving God must exist.

The first way is that there must be first mover, moved by no other, that can only be believe to be God. The second way is that the reis cause and effect, there has to be a first cause, that is believed to be God. The third way is thatthere is possibility and necessity. Earth was somehow created, it hasn t always existed, something had to create it. There has to be something that set off a chain reaction causing earth to exist. It snot possible for everything to come from nothing.

If nothing existed then nothing could have been created. The fourth way is taken from gradation to be found in things. (29) This is basically stating that there has to be a reason for existing, for being the way we are, and it must be God. And finally there's the fifth way, Governance of the world, all natural things are directed to their end.

(29) You then look at the deists eighteenth century argument, it seems to use a similar argument used by Aquinas, The second way from the nature of efficient cause. (28) Really don t think that Aquinas argument succeeds because its states that it was rejected by modern physics. To me, none of their arguments can prove the existence of God they only produce more ideas. I really don t think that God can be proved to be real.

The only proof Could say would be worthy proof of God existing is visual proof, and not just anyone seeing him and saying they saw him, but myself see God with my own eyes.