Defining God’s Existence Essay

1061 Words 5 Pages
There are two types of arguments to approach the existence of God. A posteriori argument is defining things based on the premises of what is true by our own experiences. This is the idea that we cannot know what is true unless we have experienced it using our five senses of sight, smell, hearing, touch, etc. This type of truth according to the book Core Questions in Philosophy written by Elliot Sober, is a posteriori truth, which is “one that requires experience to be known (or justified)”(84). A priori argument is a conclusion based on the understanding of the concept, not through prior or innate experience. One can claim their preposition is a priori even if they have no innate knowledge or experience of the subject, as long as they …show more content…
(Sober 85). Sober also states that through the definition of God, the existence of God is formed (Core Questions in Philosophy, 85). In his first argument Anslem defines God as the greatest being possible, according to the ontological argument, one should believe that God is the greatest being possible, because that is what the definition stated.The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philospohy identifies an ontological argument as on that is purely analytical, where a person must understand concepts without observation of the world. By the priori argument, we don’t use our senses or prior knowledge to identify God’s existence, but the definitions applied to God’s existence. (Sober 84) We are to accept Anslem’s argument as true as long as we understand what is definitions are. In Anslem’s second argument he states that necessarily, God exists. Because God is the epitome of perfection, his existence does not depend on conditional things. According to Core Questions in Philosophy, “a necessary being is more perfect than a contingent one. So if God has all the perfections, He must be a necessary being, not a contingent one” (Sober, 87). With that said because God is perfect, he is necesary, therefore God exsists. Gaunilo has a counter argument where he states that a perfect island cannot be defined based on a priori arguments, because if the concept of a perfect island is true just based on the definition that it is, it

Related Documents