Flilix said:
WolfpackN64 said:
Copied from my own post:
Well, you have the classical tripartite of the ontological argument (God exists because he is the highest conceivable being), the teleological argument (God exists because everything in nature has a purpose and a means of functioning and he is responsible) and the cosmological argument (we are all contingent beings, being that we have the possibility to exist and not exist and if we exist, we exist for a certain period in time. We as contingent beings come forth from other contingent beings in a chain of cause and effect, but this chain must end since neither time, nor cause and effect can regress indefinitely, so there must be a necessary being at the start that can cause but is not caused himself). Note that these are extremely short versions of the arguments (each of them has many forms and they are quite difficult).
Furthermore you have arguments like Pascal's wager which states that in the event that God does exist, it's better to be a believer, but since we don't know if he exist, it's rational to believe, since it wouldn't net you any negatives if he didn't exist, while not believing if he does exist would be a negative.
This is just a thin slice on the literature surrounding arguments to God's existence.
|
What about Gaunilo's island?
|
To be fair, the ontological argument IS the weakest one and I'm not a fan of it. I just presented it as an option, but it is generally not hard to criticise.
