{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Existence of God formal paper

Existence of God formal paper - Bryan Gastelle Tuske The...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Bryan Gastelle Tuske The Existence of God Throughout the ages people have debated how and why we are here. Nobody knows the answer to this question, however there are those that claim they do. Religion is; at least in part a structured attempt to explain this mystery. Religion comforts people with definite answers to seemingly improvable phenomena. Most religions worship a God that is perfect in every sense of the word. A God that is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving. Theists have used the ontological argument to prove the existence of God. The ontological argument says three things: God is perfect; when one denies the existence of God they must have an idea in their mind of God’s perfection; existence is a perfection. This argument in my opinion is the most flawed. Basically this argument states that as mortal beings we cannot comprehend the absolute perfection of God; however we can imagine the concept of God. Therefore for us to be able to accurately imagine a perfect God we must assume that it is perfect in the sense that God does exist. This argument forms a logical spiral that is difficult to attack; however it has one major weakness. Its weakness is that the word, “God” in the above proof could be replaced by any other noun. Opponents of this argument have used a perfect sports car as an example. If there was a perfect sports car than we could not fully imagine it’s absolute perfection, however we could form an idea of it in our mind. This concept permits the ontological argument to prove the existence of a perfect sports car. Any logical person will tell you that objects cannot be imagined into existence and any theist will tell you that there is no such thing as a perfect car.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
The immediate counter to this objection is that in theory God is not comparable to a car; God is intangible unlike a car. This is at best a shaky defense. If the word “God” in the ontological argument could be replaced only by a noun that is intangible and immeasurable, could it not be replaced by the word “thought”? All theists believe that some form of thought is intangible; to the best of my knowledge all theists believe that people have a soul; in order to argue that people have a soul one must agree that some forms of thought; primarily pertaining to spiritual ideology are a product of not only the physical mind but the soul as well. So if the word God were replaced by “thought” in the ontological argument it would render the argument illogical and contradictory of itself.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 6

Existence of God formal paper - Bryan Gastelle Tuske The...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online