The Classical Theistic Conception of God states that there is a unique intelligent being that created the universe and that being is wholly perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent. In connection with the question of whether belief in a being that satisfies this definition is ever grounded in evidence and argument there are three arguments to consider. These three arguments are the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument. Each provides separate ideas in proving the existence of a being that satisfies the Classical Theistic Conception of God.
The ontological argument states “A wholly perfect being has all perfections, existence is a perfection, therefore, a wholly perfect being exists.” The cosmological argument says “Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being, not every being can be a dependent being, and therefore exists a self-existent being.” Lastly, the teleological argument says that if one comes across a watch, they know/can infer that there was a watchmaker who made that watch and that one can think the same thing of a biological argument. In my opinion, if I had to choose any and after closely evaluating each argument, the teleological argument provides the strongest foundation for an argument that there is a being that fulfills the Classical Theistic Conception of God.
The teleological argument, although it does face serious difficulties, seems to make the most sense and have more support than any of the other arguments. The ontological argument is too ambiguous in its first too premises and just doesn’t make any sense when pulled apart and evaluated. The cosmological argument seems to make some sense but it also seems to be a small piece of the teleological argument. The teleological argument suggests that there had to be a designer of all biological organisms because of their order and complexity. If there had to be a designer of...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document