{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Phi 105 week 6 DQ 1 - which nothing greater can be...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
The differences between ontological, teleological, and cosmological arguments are that in ontological it is  assumed that God exists and in cosmotological & teleological this is not a basic concept that God does in fact exist,  instead the arguments suppose that the earth could not have arisen on its own. So in these arguments God is inferred  but not directly stated, rather, the ideas of a higher power is assumed. They all are similar in that they do not rest on  any religious assumptions, but mere ideals and notions.  I feel the philosopher that best support their argument is Anselm. Anselm states, “God is something that 
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: which nothing greater can be thought.” In other words if you try to think of something higher than God you just cannot do it. I like this argument better than Aquinas’ argument that God exists as four sides of a square exits. Anselm’s argument makes more sense in the logical sense, as in, most people know that a square is a square and can be nothing more than a square, where as no one who has the belief in God knows how large God is, to most, God is never ending, where as the universe some say is never ending and yet to those who believe in God, God is even bigger than the universe its self....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online