u/ApocaSCP_001

Now… this one, it’s a very weird argument for the existence of God, even many Christians are skeptical of this argument, heck, even St.Thomas Aquinas, a theologian who proved the existence of God with his three ways, was highly skeptical of it. Myself included. It was created by St.Anselm of Canterbury, and it goes as such…

God is that which nothing greater can be conceived, existing in both reality and the mind os greater than just existing in the mind, so God exists in both mind and reality as he is that which nothing greater can be conceived.

One of Anselm’s contemporaries, Gaunilo, an 11th century monk, mocked this argument by using a Reductio ad absurdum (form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that following the logic of a contrary proposition or argument would lead to absurdity or contradiction.) He said that then we could also conceive a greatest possible island, modern variations have this as a pizza. There is also Aquinas’s criticism of the argument, he stated that since God himself alone is the only being that is capable of knowing his own nature (God is ineffable and infinite), we cannot comprehend his essence, and that since the ontological argument is a priori argument (one built upon pure logic rather than empirical or sensory information, aka a posteriori), we would not be able to know the definition of God from pure logic. There’s also Immanuel Kant’s criticism that “existence is not a predicate” (he developed the Transcendental argument)

Criticisms of these criticisms would include objections that if an island or pizza were a necessary, absolutely perfect being, it wouldn’t be an island or pizza at all as those two things have physical limitations, or that for a necessary being, existence is a predicate. (To be honest, I can’t really imagine a counter to Aquinas’s criticism… he’s too goated)

There is also the Modal ontology argument. Which goes as such…
God’s existence is possible, if God’s existence is possible then he can exist in some possible world, if he can exist in some possible argument then he must exist in all arguments. In short, if God CAN exist, he MUST exist because he is a necessary being.

There are two counterarguments I mostly see for this argument. The reverse ontological argument, if God CAN NOT exist, then God MUST NOT exist, and the claim that God is an impossible being. Uh, the latter can easily be thrown out considering the other arguments for God, as for the reverse ontological argument, there’s apparently the counter-claim that this wouldn’t work on a necessary being.

…as you can clearly tell, I’m not exactly the biggest fan of the ontological argument (Anselm’s and Modal), it’s not that I necessarily disagree with it, but I’m unconvinced. Just my personal thoughts on it though, if it’s convincing you, good enough.

“Why is there something rather than nothing?”-Leibniz

This is my personal favourite argument for the existence of God, and the core idea goes as such…

Thing is caused, chain of things causing another thing, chain cannot go on forever, at end, we get uncaused causer whom we identify as God. (Gross oversimplification ik)
There’s three variants of the Cosmological argument, proposed by either St.Thomas Aquinas or Aristotle, Leibniz also had a role in the Cosmological argument.

Contingency argument:
Contingent things exist, they could have failed to exist and are reliant on something else, this goes on in a chain of dependency, this chain cannot go on forever, therefore, a necessary being exists at the end of this chain, whom we call “God”.

Argument from motion: (From Aristotle)
All created things are in a mix of actuality and potentiality, things exist and can change. Things undergo motion (movement between potentiality and actuality) and change, but Newton’s Third Law says objects at rest remain at rest, something cannot actualise itself, it requires an external force. There’s a chain of motion, like a domino effect, infinite regress is not possible, so there must have been an unmoved mover who set the universe in motion.

Efficient causes:
All created things are in a mix of actuality and potentiality, things exist and can change. Things undergo motion (movement between potentiality and actuality) and change, but Newton’s Third Law says objects at rest remain at rest, something cannot actualise itself, it requires an external force. There’s a chain of motion, like a domino effect, infinite regress is not possible, so there must have been an unmoved mover who set the universe in motion.

Counterarguments essentially boil down to “infinite regression is possible” or “why can’t the universe be unmoved/necessary?” (Usually by bringing up B theory of time) But the problem with those arguments is that they misunderstand Aquinas’s words. When Aquinas says that the universe is contingent and that infinite regression is impossible, he is not referring to the temporal kind, Aquinas admits that in terms of time, an eternal universe or infinite regression is possible when he makes the distinction between accidental (temporal) and essential (per se, casual ordered series of events), a temporally eternal universe and or a temporal infinite regression is completely fine under Aquinas’s philosophy, but he is specifically referring to a per-se, casual ordered series If something only has power by receiving it from something else, then it cannot produce effects on its own, if everything in the chain is like that then nothing would ever actually be producing effects. But effects clearly exist right now. So there must be something that has causal power without borrowing it. Oh and that the universe has potency. There is also the “who created God” argument but that can simply be explained with God not requiring a creator if he is eternal.

This is often the most used argument I see for the existence of God, and for good reason. It follows as such…

The universe is finely tuned, its design is intricate and if any laws or constants of the universe were even slightly different, the universe and everything within would cease to exist. The chances of the universe even existing, or life existing, is so slim that the chances it was designed by an intelligent creator is far more likely. It’s a very intuitive argument, as humans tend to expect objects which are complex, to have a designer, like with a watch and a watchmaker. It is a posteriori argument, meaning that it derived from observation, data and sensory perception. And it is St.Thomas Aquinas’s fifth way, Aquinas was a Dominican priest apart of the Catholic Church, he is a saint venerated by the Church and also a philosopher.

Criticisms of the Teleological argument include
A) Multiverse hypothesis, where if there are countless universes then inevitably a life-permitting universe would exist. (eliminating the need of an intelligent designer)
B) the weak Anthropic Principle. We observe the universe to be "fine-tuned" simply because, if it were not, we would not exist to observe it, rendering the "design" unremarkable.
C) that this argument is a God of the gaps fallacy.

Criticisms of these counterarguments would say that
A) A multiverse theory to avoid theism violates occams razor.
B) the firing squad analogy to the Weak anthropic principle. If 50 marksmen miss a prisoner, survival implies they intentionally missed, not that it was a lucky accident. Countering the idea that we shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves in a life-permitting universe, as you would be surprised if the shooters missed
C) and that the Teleological argument is not from a gap in nature but more rather that an intelligent creator is more LIKELY than by pure chance.