Bryson, AnnetteSorgner, StefanChapman, Miles2024-07-122024-07-122024Chapman, Miles. "Divine Discourse: Ontological Arguments for God’s Existence". BA Thesis, John Cabot University, Rome, Italy. 2024.https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14490/171Thesis (B.A. in Humanistic Studies, Minor in Philosophy Art History and Studio Art)--John Cabot University, Spring 2024.The divine and our concept of it, whatever it may be, is a fundamental building block of society. Commonality in religion is where many societies are born, and diversity where countless conflicts spur. What is so special about this concept to warrant such actions? That is a question for another time. For now, in this paper, rather than looking at the application of the concept, known as religion, will place focus on the concept itself, specifically the monotheistic concept of an all-powerful God. Who, or what, is God? How do we define the notion of God? What logic do we cling to in order to defend our faith? Following will be an analysis of the premises used in the so-called ontological argument for God’s existence. Philosophers such as the 13th century Thomas Aquinas, 11th century Anselm of Canterbury, and 20th and 21st century works by contemporary philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, will all be judged on the merits of their arguments. These three philosophers, who all attempt to put logic to faith, are essential to understand as building blocks of the common notion of a divine entity referred to as God. This paper will give a chronological account of their findings and highlight the advancements made in their respective works. Subsequently, it will provide the reader with an understanding of what it means to speak about a divine entity beyond the context of religious texts. With that knowledge, the question will be posed as to whether or not it is rational to reject God’s existence on the grounds of scientific or logical understanding. The answer, after close examination of the aforementioned teachings must undoubtably be that those who blankly reject the divine on such grounds fail to comprehend the very logic they assume to defend.v, 30 pagesenAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/GodCosmological proofOntological proofTeleological proofThesis