What is the strength of ontological argument?

What is the strength of ontological argument?

Strengths of the Ontological Argument Hence, God must exist in reality by the meaning of the word God. The argument succeeds as it is deductive and clear conclusions can be drawn from it, this leaves the argument with only one answer; God exists.

What are the strengths of a priori reasoning?

A strength of an a priori argument is that if you accept the premise then the conclusion must be true as it is logically necessary. God must, by definition, exist. To accept on the one hand that God is ‘that than which no greater can be conceived’ and then to say that God doesn’t exist is to make a logical error.

Why is the ontological argument weak?

One weakness of the ontological argument is that its logic can let us say a lot of things exist by definition. You just have to imagine it in its most perfect form and then we can say logically that it exists by definition. This doesn’t happen so the argument is flawed and unreliable.

Why is the ontological argument convincing?

The general overall argument is convincing because it is logical to think that God is the greatest thing that can be thought of and to agree with our statement, “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” he must exist in reality.

What are the weaknesses of the design argument?

Weaknesses of the design argument Complexity does not necessarily mean design. Even if we accept that the world was designed, it cannot be assumed that its designer is God. And if it were designed by God, then the existence of evil and suffering in the world would suggest the belief that God is entirely good is false.

Is the ontological argument successful?

There is no real evidence to show God’s existence and some statements are poor (such as existence being predicate). Therefore the Ontological Argument is unsuccessful in proving God’s existence.

Does the ontological argument work?

Kant claims that this is merely a tautology and cannot say anything about reality. However, if the statement is synthetic, the ontological argument does not work, as the existence of God is not contained within the definition of God (and, as such, evidence for God would need to be found).

What are some weaknesses of the cosmological argument?

Disadvantages

• No proof of God’s existence.
• Lots of Inductive Leaps (Hume)
• No imperial evidence (Hume)
• Assumptions between cause and effect.
• The world may be infinite and doesn’t need to have a cause (Russell and Oscillating Universe Theory)
• Contradicting statements – Everything needs a cause, but God doesn’t need a cause.

What’s ontological argument?

Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone.

What are the weaknesses of the first cause argument?

Weaknesses of the argument ‘ To reply that God needs no explanation is not enough to prove God’s existence. The Big Bang was not necessarily caused by God – it could have happened by chance. The argument is presented for believers and makes sense to them, but it is not convincing for the atheist or the agnostic .

What are some strengths to the cosmological argument?

Terms in this set (9)

• Strength: It’s an ‘a posteriori’ argument.
• Strength: God is a simple explanation.
• Strength: Infinite regress is unlikely.
• Strength: It’s logical.
• Weakness: Inconsistent notion of necessary being.
• (Comeback) God is not bound by universal laws.
• Weakness:
• Weakness:

What is the ontological argument in simple terms?

The ontological argument is an idea in religious philosophy. It is supposed to show that God exists. There are different versions, but they all argue something like: because we can imagine a perfect being, there must be a god. The idea is that existing makes a good thing better than one that’s only imaginary.

How does ontology influence research?

Ontology helps researchers recognize how certain they can be about the nature and existence of objects they are researching. For instance, what ‘truth claims’ can a researcher make about reality? Who decides the legitimacy of what is ‘real’? How do researchers deal with different and conflicting ideas of reality?