Part I Question 2: Ontological arguments
Ontological arguments are a category of philosophical arguments that support the existence of God using ontology. There are many arguments classified under the category of ontological. Normally ontological arguments normally start a priory theory about how the universe is organized. The argument states that if it is true that the universe is organized, then it will give reasons as to why God must exist (Schlesinger, 85). They rationally support God’s existence. The ontological argument that God exists was first created in the proslogion of Anselm (1033-1109). Immanuel Kant was the first person to call the argument ‘ontological.’ Kant said that Christians could have faith in God, and that faith will be checked the categorical imperative and reason. Human beings are autonomous in their creation of moral values; it will be rational to believe in God who gives reason to the moral realm (Schlesinger, 90). The argument was popular with rational philosophers such as Descartes, Spinoza, Hegel, Godel and Leibniz who made their own versions of it. At some point, even Plato is seen to be making an argument like this. The argument states that God is a perfect being. Because he is perfect, he has all perfections. If God does not exist then, he is not perfect. If he is perfect then he must exist.
Part II Question 2: Pascal’s wager
French mathematician known as Blaise Pascal established this argument to appeal to the agnostics. Pascal’s wager is amongst the most famous arguments in theological philosophy. The wager is a theoretic argument for believing that God exists. It further states that God either exists or he does not and you either believe in God or you do not. Many philosophers think that Pascal’s wager is sound (Hajek). Before looking at the objections, Pascal’s wagers are an argument of extraordinary or supernatural power. Pascal’s wager is compelling at the start because “believing” that God exists is seen as costless. Believing in the possibility of an extraordinary entity, however, it shows that the believer is ready to accept any cost in order to achieve infinite utility. The offer makes the second statement clear. It does not also prove that Pascal’s wager is not true, even though people who have heard of the offer take it as a reduction. When belief is cost free Pascal’s wager becomes an argument for dominance. Pasclian dominance argument can be important in the arena of macro-economic policies (Tabarrok, 412).
Part III Question 1: Problem of evil
The problem of evils is often stated as the problem of compatibility between the existence of God and the existence of evil. An atheist normally suggests that the existence of evil is a sign that God does not exist. God’s existence and his omniscient and omnipotent nature mean that he knows in which circumstances evil will occur. This in turn means that he should be able to stop its occurrence. God being perfectly good will prevent such evil events and evil will not exist. Theists have opposed by denying the assertion that it is not necessarily true that a perfectly good being who has foreseen an evil event that he can prevent it will actually prevent it (Cowen and High, 230). There are several types of evil like painful sensations that are experienced by people and to a lower level by animals too. There are painful emotions that are not characterized by pain e.g. feelings of failure, frustration and loss. Thirdly, there exists undesirable state of affairs in the mind of men that do not involve suffering, for example, envy and hatred. Fourthly, there are actions of men that are evil, such as actions that have foreseeable evil consequences such as lying. The antitheists suggest that it would be wrong for God to create men who are able to harm each other. In reply theists argue that the creator who would give man ability to commit limited evil would be a creator who offers them limited responsibility. A theist must show that their men working for common good and helping each other despite the temptation to commit evil (Cowen and High, 237).
Part IV Question 1: My Views on why God exists
Religious philosophers have, in the past, tried to prove that God exists. The claim that it is in our advantage to believe that God exists is supported by the consequences that can arise due to either unbelief or belief. If humanity does not believe that God exists, then we will receive eternal punishment but when we do not believe, then we shall have gained minimal or nothing. Receiving lasting rewards in heaven or losing nothing or little is more preferable to receiving lasting punishment or gaining nothing or little. Believing that God exists is much better than not believing. Arguing against the existence of God is contradicting oneself and is just like speaking nonsense. The only being whose existence needs no explanation is a necessary being, one that couldn’t have existed (Cowen and High, 250). The universe, therefore, has been created by something external. To say that it is by chance that the universe is ordered is not satisfactory compared to an explanation of the design and appearance. It is much more probable that the universe is as it is because it was created by God with the notion of life in his mind.
Hajek, A. Pascal’s Wager. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 1998. Web. 27 Mar. 2014.
Schlesinger, G. “A central theistic argument.” Gambling On God 1994: 83–100. Print.
Tabarrok, A. “Irrelevance Propostions are Irrelevant.” Kyklos 48. (1995). 409-417. Print.
Cowen, T. and J. High. “Time, Bounded Utility, and the St. Petersburg Paradox.” Theory and Decision 25. (1988). 219–273. Print.