What are key differences between the ontological, teleological, and cosmological arguments? Identify the philosopher who you think best supports his or her argument. Explain your answer briefly.
What are key differences between the ontological, teleological, and cosmological arguments? Identify the philosopher who you think best supports his or her argument.
The Ontological argument states that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. Anyone that considers that God does not exist is a "fool". The Ontological argument is believed to be a play on words and proves nothing. It is based on different premises but they do not compliment each other.
The Teleological argument states that Gods existence can be proved by Aquinas five ways. The "first way" to prove that God exists is to consider that natural things are in motion. There had to be a first mover in order for other things to move therefore God must have been the first mover. The "second way" states that nothing in the world causes itself. The same thing applies to this way that was stated in the first way. God would be the first cause. The "third way" states that in nature everything need not exist, despite the fact that is does exist. The "fourth way" wants us to consider that all natural things posess degrees of goodness, truth, nobility and all other perfections. There must be a source of these perfections and that would be God. The "fifth way" states that natural things act for an end purpose.
The Cosmological argument states that everything that exists has a cause for their existence. The universe exists therefore there is a cause for it's existence. God is the ultimate creator of existence.
None of the arguments are based on religious assumptions.
The philosopher that best supports their argument would be Alvin Plantinga. He is a contemporary analytic philosopher who believes that a person may believe in God without any evidence that suggests that God does exist.
five examples of fallacies in the social media
The ontological, teleological, and cosmological arguments are three different philosophical arguments that seek to provide evidence for the existence of God.
1. The ontological argument is based on the concept of God as a necessary being whose existence is evident from the very definition of God. It argues that the idea of a perfect God necessarily includes the attribute of existence. In other words, if we can conceive of a being that is perfect in every way, then it must necessarily exist. This argument was famously put forth by philosopher Saint Anselm.
2. The teleological argument, also known as the argument from design, posits that the complexity and orderliness of the universe imply the existence of an intelligent designer. It suggests that the intricate design and purposeful arrangement of elements in the world cannot be attributed to chance or natural processes. Instead, it points to the existence of a divine creator. One of the philosophers associated with this argument is William Paley.
3. The cosmological argument is based on the idea that everything in the universe has a cause or an explanation for its existence. This argument proposes that there must be a first cause or an ultimate explanation for the existence of the universe itself. It argues that this first cause is God. The cosmological argument has been advanced by various philosophers throughout history, with Thomas Aquinas being a significant proponent.
In terms of which philosopher best supports their argument, it is subjective and open to interpretation. Different philosophers have made compelling cases for each argument. Some may find Anselm's ontological argument to be the most convincing, while others might favor Paley's teleological argument. Similarly, there are different interpretations and variations of the cosmological argument, each with its own merits. Evaluating which philosopher best supports their argument ultimately depends on personal perspective and philosophical inclination.