First of all, we must ask: is the existence of God an analytic statement, or is it synthetic. An analytic statement is one which is impossible to think of as false. For example, a triangle having three internal angles which total 180 degrees is an analytic statement because it it impossible to think of a triangle in any other way. This therefore means that the proposition is logically necessary and it would be incoherent to be considered to be false.
However, a synthetic statement is one in which the statements truth or falsity depends on evidence which must be collected. Therefore, to determine whether or not it is pointless to deny the logical necessity of the …show more content…
In Anselm's second argument a conclusion is drawn, which states that God has to exist and cannot fail to exist. In philosophical terms this refers to necessary existence. God is not a contingent being, due to the fact that God exists by necessity. According to Anselm, God simply must exist, and this should not be denied.
Anselm also claims that is it part of God’s nature that God exists, and this suggests the idea that a predicate of God is God’s existence.
An argument which defends the existence of God as an analytic proposition is Descartes’ response to the criticism of his argument. Descartes uses the triangle as an example. The nature of a triangle is that it has three sides, and three interior angles totaling 180 degrees. This nature is immutable, meaning that it is incapable of change and difference. Secondly, triangles are simply an example of ‘what you see is what you get’ meaning that even if no one had any knowledge of a triangle it would still exist in its current form. The key point in this concept is that, like a triangle, God also has an immutable nature. According to Descartes part of God’s nature is that it exists. Part of God’s essence is therefore existence, …show more content…
The first is the idea that if you study the idea of God carefully enough is clear that the perfection of existence is part of the way of God. Secondly is the idea that even though you can claim to happily think of mountains and valleys, it does not mean that they exist, whereas Descartes insists that existence is a perfection, and hence God being perfect must exist.
When an atheist denies the existence of God, logic will often be uses as his means of reasoning and arguing his point. It is possible to state that logic so clearly demonstrates the existence of God, as a source of beginning and creation, but the matter of fact is that the Atheist has no reason to use logic at all, let alone deny the existence of God at all.
As humans we understand that logic is valid, due to the fact that we must use it constantly; and we also know that logic cannot prove itself to be valid. There can be no logical answer other than to say that logic demands the existence of God. Logic presupposes Gods existence, and in this respect by denying God, you are simply denying logic. This therefore means that atheists are stalled. If he admits to the existence of logic, he must admit and understand the existence of God, yet if he denies God he must demonstrate how logic is valid. This is something which cannot be done. Logic demands the existence of God. Logic, therefore, proves the existence of