If it is of faith, then there can't be any reasons to support it.  Because, if you had any reasons, it wouldn't be faith.

Problem: How do you decide which faith to choose?

By blinding picking you imply that it doesn't matter what you choose

Choosing based on reason isn't fideist

Before you can honestly evaluate something, you must rid yourself of all biased thinking

a. discard all prior experiences

b. must prove absolutely, without a doubt

Problem: you cannot completely forget past experiences just because you want to, and cannot prove anything for certain

A set of statements, one of with (the conclusion) is supported by the others (the premises)

Two Criteria for Evaluating an Argument

1. All premises must be true

2. The argument must be valid: the conclusion follows the premises

True or false based on definition

You know based on prior knowledge

Cannot determine true or false simply by looking at meaning or words

You have to look into it, you don't know based on prior knowledge

1. Definition of God: Greatest Conceivable Being

2. God exists in the understanding

3. A being that exists in the understanding only is not as great as a being that exists in reality

4. If God exists in the understanding only, then God isn't the GCB

5. Therefore, God must exist in reality

Anselm's 1st Version of the Ontological Argument

Baker - Garret Rendition

1. Definition of God: GCB

2. God exists in the understanding only or reality and understanding

3. Assume God exists in the understanding only

4. God can be conceived to exist in reality

5. To exist in reality is greater than existence in understanding only

6. God can be conceived to be greater

7. "GCB" can be conceived to be greater

8. God does not exist in the understanding only

9. Therefore, God exists in reality

Reductio Ad Absurdum

Reduction Strategy

1. Assume the truth of some belief (generally the one you're opposed to)

2. State arguments that will contradict your opponents belief

3. Contradiction

4. The contradiction shows that the opponent's argument cannot be true

• It is dependent on being surrounded by water
• It cannot have great characteristics (such as the human abilities to love and think)
• There are different ideas of what that island would be

Existence is not a great-making quality

Adding the quality of existence to your perfect car does not change the basic concept of the car, therefore the car is not any better than before you added the quality of existence

Davis' argument against Kant is that his concept of $100 is that it has purchasing power in the real world

1. Depends on something else
2. You can conceive of it as not existing

1. Aseity: Self-Existing - Existence is not dependent on something else NOR is the existence CAUSED by anything else
2. You cannot conceive of it not existing: God's nonexistence isn't logically conceivable

1.  If God exists, then his existence is necessary

2.  If God does not exist, then his existence is impossible

3.  Either God exists, or God does not exist

4.  God existence: GeN v GeI

5.  God's existence is possible, not impossible

6.  Therefore, God's existence is necessary

1.  If God does not exist, then God's existence is impossible

2.  God does not exist

3.  Therefore, God's existence is impossible

4.  God's existence is impossible, not possible

The atheist argues that he/she was tricked into saying God exist

1.  If God does not exist, then God's existence is impossible

2.  If God's existence is not impossible, then God does not, not exist

3.  If God's existence is possible, then god exists