Does God Exist?Essay Preview: Does God Exist?Report this essayDoes God Exist ?1. What role do arguments play in answering this question?I think arguments have played an important role in analyzing and understanding the depth of this question, for mankind. Although the question itself seems factual (either it does or it doesnt), yet no arguments have been able to answer this question conclusively, despite many debates going on for centuries. One possible reason for that inconclusiveness may lie in our intuition and the way, humans define God and existence. We will explain why we dont think arguments conclusively answer this question, in more detail in answer to question 4 below.
2. Does Stroll offer any arguments that help answer this question?Stroll himself doesnt propose any arguments himself, for or against, this question. He does analyze the two classical arguments for the existence of God, namely the ontological argument and the argument from design. The two arguments belong to sharply contrasting philosophical approaches namely rationalism and empiricism.
The ontological argument is based on rationalism and uses reasoning (much in the same way as mathematics) to make its case for the existence of God and is thus a priori. The ontological argument uses opposite contradiction to prove the existence of a being than which a greater cannot be thought. It proposes that since necessary existence or more strictly, non-contingent existence is greater than contingent existence, so God necessarily exists. This argument is put forth by philosophers like Anselm, Descartes, Leibniz and Platinga who are all rationalists.
The design argument is rooted in empiricism and proposes that all matters of fact to be discussed based on experiment and observation (much in the same way as science). It uses observation of our world, complex interaction of forces of nature and the scientific laws governing them, to propose that this world is like a complex machine and hence must have a designer. This designer is God and hence it proposes that god exists. Hume, Paley, Clark and many other scientists belong to this group. The controversial intelligent design theory, put forth in last 20 years, also has its roots in the design argument though intelligent design doesnt propose who the intelligent cause or designer is.
3. What does Stroll think of the arguments for the existence of God?Stroll discusses both, ontological argument and argument from design, in great detail with their historical and philosophical contexts. Stroll [1] first states the weak form of ontological argument which basically states that since existence is greater than non existence so God must exist, as its is defined as a being than which nothing a greater can be thought. Strolls criticism of this version of ontological argument is that this version commits the fallacy of equivocation by equating the mental idea of a being to its real, physical being which exists in reality. Other philosophers have also rejected this version of ontological argument saying that existence is not a property or quality that can be used in comparing greatness.
{note2: This is a bad one. I haven’t read it – only an excerpt that discusses it has some good points. But, I think it’s better to put it in its original context.
2. What does Stroll think of the arguments for the existence of God?Stroll describes both ontological argument and argument from design, in great detail with their historical and philosophical contexts. Stroll [1] first states the weak form of ontological argument which basically states that since existence is greater than non existence so God must exist, as its is defined as a being than which nothing a greater can be thought. Strolls criticism of this version of ontological argument is that this version commits the fallacy of equivocation by equating the mental idea of a being to its real, physical being which exists in reality. Other philosophers have also rejected this version of ontological argument saying that existence is not a property or quality that can be used in comparing greatness. Stroll [1] first states the weak form of ontological argument which basically states that since existence is greater than non existence so God must exist, as its is defined as a being than which nothing a greater can be thought. Strolls criticism of this version of ontological argument is that this version commits the fallacy of equivocation by equating the mental idea of a being to its real, physical being which exists in reality. Other philosophers have also rejected this version of ontological argument saying that existence is not a property or quality that can be used in comparing greatness. Stroll [1] first state the weak form of ontological argument which basically states that since existence is greater than non existence so God must exist, as its is defined as a being than which nothing a greater can be thought. Strolls criticism of this version of ontological argument is that this version commits the fallacy of equivocation by equating the mental idea of a being to its real, physical being which exists in reality. Other philosophers have also rejected this version of ontological argument saying that existence is not a property or quality that can be used in comparing greatness. Stroll [1] first states the weak form of ontological argument which basically states that since existence is greater than non existence so God must exist, as its is defined as a being than which nothing a greater can be thought. Strolls critique of this version of ontological argument is that this version commits the fallacy of equivocation by equating the mental idea of a being to its real, physical being which exists in reality. Other philosophers have also rejected this version of ontological argument saying that existence is not a property or quality that can be used in comparing greatness. Strengths of your writing: 3 points. It offers a good framework about the content of ontological arguments, provides both an analytical framework and a useful method to see what arguments are about to be discussed by arguing for greater being and whether or not it’s really there for the purposes of argument. 4 points. Stroll has also found good references for some other philosophers: 1) David Fraley as well as Richard Lewin, David Campbell [2]. http:/www.ne.ac.uk/
The second version of ontological argument stated by Anselm is much stronger and is modified and refined by Hartshorne and Platinga. This argument states that non contingent existence is greater than contingent existence and since God is a being than which nothing a greater can be thought hence God must have non contingent or necessary existence or that god necessarily exists. Stroll considers this version of ontological argument much stronger but disagrees with Anselm that non contingency or non dependence for existence can be equated with necessary existence. I think this is because when comparing or equating or contrasting properties of God (than which nothing greater can be thought), words cannot be used in their normal context, considering the maximally perfect nature of God. Another criticism of this argument is that the same concept can be applied to Ðx number of imaginary perfect things. Hume was of opinion that no