In A.C Ewing's, "Proofs of God's Existenceâ€" Ewing breaks down his views
with three different arguments. The first is the ontological argument, the second is
the cosmological argument, and the third is the teleological argument. Each one of
these arguments proves Ewing's point of view thoroughly, and sincerely.
The ontological argument states that we prove the existence of God by
reflections of what are ideas are about him. God is understood to be an individual or
being who knows everything, which in other words is considered to be omniscient. If
something is true, God (real or fictitious) would know it. Correspondingly, if something
is false, God (real or fictitious) would know that as well. Along with this goes the fact
that we conceive of God as encompassing all rationality. A being who created the
universe but was irrational, for example, would not appropriately be called God.
Another point that supports this argument is that all rational individuals believe in their
own existence. Even if they don't exist, this is acknowledged to be the case. Existing
individuals believe correctly in their own existence, while fictitious individuals are sadly
mistaken on this point. If God did not exist, then by our first point, above, God would
know that he or she did not exist. But this contradicts our second point. So God must
Reasoning known as the cosmological argument tries to justify belief in God by
pointing to the existence of the cosmos, its causal orderliness, and suspected evidence of
its being in some sense designed to include life and intelligence. Some cosmologists
believe that the existence and order of the cosmos can be accounted for scientifically. Its
life-permitting character might itself, be explained through its being divided into
universes. These could vary randomly in their features, ours being one of the
perhaps very rare ones in which ...