Essay on Varying Arguments for the Existence of God

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

In this paper, I will deliver a reconstruction of Anselm's Ontological argument for the existence of God, and its adequacy for the existence of the greatest conceivable being. I will establish this by proving that Anselm's premises are sound and that the deductive arguments follow through a valid conclusion.

1. The first objection to the existence of God is the proponent of the Cosmological Argument makes the mistake of the collection of dependent beings as it itself one big depended

The Kalam Cosmological Argument presented by Dr. William Lane Craig states that everything that beings to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist; therefore: the universe has a cause. The Cosmological argument argues that the universe that we live in has a cause and purpose. There must be a creator (God) of the universe because the universe cannot have a cause without something or someone feeling the need to create. In the Craig-Dacey debate Dr. Dacey opening argument or rebuttal was aimed to disprove God’s existence. Dr. Dacey begin to show that the concept of God is self- contradictory.

Anselm’s Ontological Argument argues for the existence of an all-perfect God. The Ontological Argument assumes that Existence is a great making property. Critiques of Anselm and his version of the Ontological Argument argue that existence is not a great making property. If the critics are correct, they have completely bested Anselm, and destroyed his argument. In this essay, I will argue on behalf of Anselm’s argument and defend existence as a great making property.

The Cosmological Argument attempts to prove that God exists by showing that there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to things that exist. It states that there must be a final uncaused-cause of all things. This uncaused-cause is asserted to be God. Arguments like this are thought up to recognize why we and the universe exist.

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.

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

All moral arguments for the existence of God work on the principle that we all have a shared sense of morality. Despite cultural differences, broadly speaking, humans worldwide have a vague idea of what is right and what is wrong; a moral argument for the existence of God would say that this mutual understanding is proof of God's existence.

In our ever conscience society, the idea of God has become a highly tried and tested controversy between the believer and the non. Faith is no longer the matter of blind reliance like it has often described as.The debates over the existence of the Christian God have reached and pressed limits in our current society more ravenously than they have ever before in history. The all too well known statement of doubt is summed up in the simple phrase: “ How can you serve a God you can’t even prove exists?” While God cannot be put in a test tube or out on display in a museum, his existence can be archaeologically proven.The resurrection of Jesus Christ demonstrates that he is the Almighty God.

Is There a God?.. A big question that billions of people didn’t yet proved that’s it’s true or not, but we can search and find out if there is a real God or not .. Even if we don’t have much evidence that explain this answer, but we can find out the truth with a little bit of searching and thinking without judging about it. No one can tell you that you have to believe that God is here or not, even if you are not sure about it, you have to seek by yourself. The Bible said that there is people who saw the God, so there is some evidence that appear here, Jesus also said in the Bible "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you.”, so here Jesus want us to find out and to seek the truth which is

There is a lot of argument about does God exist or not exist. It was

The belief in Gods has always existed throughout human’s recored history. Whether it be the Greek Gods: Apollo, and Zeus, or the Judeo-Christian God, believed by Christians in modern day society. The belief of God has always existed among humans, however, assuming God does not exist, what explains the cultural evolution of such a false belief, namely religion? I shall argue that the reason this false belief is successful is because it manipulates human nature better than any other belief by these three points: an avoidance of death (the soul), a sense of worth (knowledge), and a sense, or need of belief (faith).

In contrast to the classical arguments for the existence of God, namely the ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments, the argument from religious experience doesn’t just entail a set logical of points arriving at a conclusion on a piece of paper, rather it also necessitates sense-based experience, tangible to the individual who experiences the divine.

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.