We have talked about many different types of arguments for the existence of god. However, only one seems interesting to me and that was the ontological argument. There are so many who studied this argument that I find it so interesting to see how they all found it and explained it. The ontological argument is the argument based on reason. It is based on the very being of God. With this argument there is no need for finding physical evidence for the existence of God. It attempts to prove the existence of God by the word and meaning of God (existence, n.d.). This argument is also a prioi argument which means it’s based of logic. It uses logic to prove the existence of god is true. How can god exist merely by logic? He had to come about somehow. There has to be a way of explaining his existence other
…show more content…
How can an all-powerful being just exist without explanation of how they came to exist? Is there more than one god?
This argument is hard to completely understand with the many ways it is explained. For example, why is it that two different people explain the same thing two different ways. I do not see why there are so many different ways of explaining the argument.
I found it difficult to understand how in Descartes’s version of this argument is correct. How is “it is more perfect to exist than not to exist” even possible? I mean being here on this planet or in the world is fine but it is not perfect. But yet again he did make a valid point in the book.” If you thought that nonexistence was better than existence, you would have shot yourself this morning” (Palmer, 1991, 160).
If god exists, he must be perfect (jones, n.d.). I would have to with Hume. How can you move from a definition to statement of reality? A definition is explanation about what something is. Where the statements are purely based off observations (palmer, 1991,
How can an all-powerful being just exist without explanation of how they came to exist? Is there more than one god?
This argument is hard to completely understand with the many ways it is explained. For example, why is it that two different people explain the same thing two different ways. I do not see why there are so many different ways of explaining the argument.
I found it difficult to understand how in Descartes’s version of this argument is correct. How is “it is more perfect to exist than not to exist” even possible? I mean being here on this planet or in the world is fine but it is not perfect. But yet again he did make a valid point in the book.” If you thought that nonexistence was better than existence, you would have shot yourself this morning” (Palmer, 1991, 160).
If god exists, he must be perfect (jones, n.d.). I would have to with Hume. How can you move from a definition to statement of reality? A definition is explanation about what something is. Where the statements are purely based off observations (palmer, 1991,