Which of the Three Classical Arguments for the Existence of God Is Strongest, in Your View, and Which Is Weakest? Why?

Which of the three Classical Arguments for the existence of God is strongest, in your view, and which is weakest? Why?

Since the beginning of time, mankind as a whole has always had an innate belief in a higher being, whether it be karma, fate or in the case of this essay, God. From the Ancient Greeks' mythological Gods to the current Creationist movement in America, the idea and belief in God has not faltered over time, but why? Why do so many people believe in something of which they have no concrete proof? In reality, I believe that faith in God has nothing to do with having proof of his existence; it is about intimate, deep and spiritual feelings that someone is either born with or gains through life experiences.

Nevertheless, for thousands of years philosophers have been captivated by the prospect of answering the infamous question, Ð''does God exist?' Plato and Aristotle started off the quest for the answer to this question, followed by nearly every philosopher that came after them, including Descartes, St Anselm, St Thomas Aquinas and Ibn Rushd to name but a few. Every philosopher has presented new ideas and theories but fundamentally they all fall under three main headings; the ontological, teleological and cosmological arguments. Each of these puts forward its own argument for the existence of God, and in this essay I will be evaluating their strengths and weakness in order to discover which one is the strongest and which is the weakest.

The ontological argument for the existence of God was introduced by St Anselm who was the Archbishop of Canterbury. He wanted to find a proof for the existence of God that was solely based on logic and that could inspire non-believers without the need for scriptures or the Bible. He believed that from the very definition of God, he could prove his existence. In the book entitled Ð''Proslogion', he begins his proof by defining God as Ð''Ð'...something which nothing greater can be conceived,' in other words, the greatest being imaginable. It follows that everyone, even those who do not believe in God, can understand this statement and can imagine that such a being exists, Ð''Ð'...when the fool hears the wordsÐ'...he understands what he hears and what he understands exists in his understanding, even if he doesn't think it exists.' So now in our mind we have this idea of God as being the greatest being imaginable, however Anselm believes that a being which exists in reality is greater than one which only exists in our mind, Ð''Ð'...therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived.' Obviously this is a contradiction, and so Anselm concludes by saying Ð''Ð'...that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.' Going back to the original definition, if something which nothing greater can be conceived exists, God exists.

Anselm succeeds in creating a proof for the existence of God that does not need any knowledge of religion, just logic. However I believe that some of his logic is in effect, incorrect, making is whole proof void. When Anselm first defines God as Ð''something which nothing greater can be conceived' he does not explain clearly from where he derived this, it is simply stated as his opinion and he assumes that it is the opinion shared by everyone. However this is not the case, not everyone who believes in God will necessarily think of him as the greatest being imaginable, indeed there are some people who believe that God is not perfect and that he has his limits. For the non believers who Anselm is trying to target with this proof, it is even less likely that they will think of God as being the greatest being imaginable, as they do not believe in him, so how can they think that? It therefore appears that the fundamental definition which Anselm's proof is based in is not entirely true and so there is a flaw in his whole argument.

There are some people who would be able to believe Anselm's first definition and so we move on to next step of the proof. He claims that if something exists in reality, it is greater than that same thing imagined in our mind. To a certain extent I do agree with this statement as surely having one thousand pounds in my hands is better than just imagining it. However the same is not necessarily true for all things; Santa Claus does not exist in reality but that doesn't make him any less great in terms of how people feel towards his character. This objection was initially put forward by Kant and I do agree with him and also think that it is down to personal opinion; once again Anselm has assumed that everyone will think the same as him.

The first objection to Anselm's proof was presented by Gaunilo, a monk, and he claimed that Anselm's proof can be used to define things into existence, even if we know they do not exist, which does not make any sense. For example we can use his logic to prove that Ð''the greatest ever island' exits and even the devil exists, by simply defining them, imagining them and then concluding that they must exist. However, we do not know that there is no such thing as the Ð''greatest ever island' or that there is a devil, they could both very well be in existence and we just haven't found them. In fact, I believe that Anselm's writings can prove that in some place or another around the galaxy, everything is possible.

The ontological argument presented by St Anselm requires one to Ð''understand' the concept of God, but many people, including myself believe that the notion of God cannot be grasped by anyone even the Archbishop of Canterbury, as St Anselm was. Hence, although it does not need a deep understanding of the bible, it does require you to think about God as a being, which is very hard to do.

The teleological argument for the existence of God is often referred to as the design argument as it calls on evidence of design and purpose to prove the existence of God. It has been presented by many philosophers including Ibn Rushd, also known as Averroes, who was an Islamic philosopher who believed that the answers to all the questions we are seeking lie in the Qu'ran and the world around us: Ð''we maintain thatÐ'...philosophy is nothing other than to look into creation and to ponder over it in order to be guided to the Creator.' In his book, Ð''religion and philosophy' he starts his argument by explaining that when