DISCUSSION! #1. Both Nielsen and Guanilo respond to Anselms ontological argument for the existence of God. (a) What is the main point of contention between these three authors (what view do each of them hold about Gods existence, what is the conclusion about Gods existence that each of them propose)? In answering this question, please briefly describe specifically how each author agrees/disagrees with the other, please give at least one sentence summarizing the conclusion of each of the authors arguments (hint: Nielsen and Guanilo may agree on a similar conclusion, but the reasons supporting their respective conclusions differ. Think about how do the differ when giving your response. How do each of them respond to Anselms ontological argument differently?) (b)Which of these authors arguments is most convincing and why (pick one authors view and provide reasons for why you think it is stronger than the others)? Do you think Guanilos argument or Nielsens argument are effective responses to the ontological argument for Gods existence? Why or why not? (Please give reasons that support the position you wish to defend. In doing so you must draw from the reading and show how either Nielsen or Guanilo aim to weaken Anselms argument, or how Anselms argument resists being damaged by Nielsens and Guanilos objections.) #2. Nielsen goes beyond the ontological argument in his discussion about Gods existence. (a) First, explain what his conclusion is in his argument concerning Gods existence. According to his argument, what are some of the consequences of a belief in Gods existence and why are some of these consequences problematic? (b) Is Nielsens argument that belief in God is not a merely innocent distortion of reality convincing? Does it help to support his overall conclusion about Gods existence, why or why not?

DISCUSSION! #1. Both Nielsen and Guanilo respond to Anselms ontological argument for the existence of God. (a) What is the main point of contention between these three authors (what view do each of them hold about Gods existence, what is the conclusion about Gods existence that each of them propose)? In answering this question, please briefly describe specifically how each author agrees/disagrees with the other, please give at least one sentence summarizing the conclusion of each of the authors arguments (hint: Nielsen and Guanilo may agree on a similar conclusion, but the reasons supporting their respective conclusions differ. Think about how do the differ when giving your response. How do each of them respond to Anselms ontological argument differently?) (b)Which of these authors arguments is most convincing and why (pick one authors view and provide reasons for why you think it is stronger than the others)? Do you think Guanilos argument or Nielsens argument are effective responses to the ontological argument for Gods existence? Why or why not? (Please give reasons that support the position you wish to defend. In doing so you must draw from the reading and show how either Nielsen or Guanilo aim to weaken Anselms argument, or how Anselms argument resists being damaged by Nielsens and Guanilos objections.) #2. Nielsen goes beyond the ontological argument in his discussion about Gods existence. (a) First, explain what his conclusion is in his argument concerning Gods existence. According to his argument, what are some of the consequences of a belief in Gods existence and why are some of these consequences problematic? (b) Is Nielsens argument that belief in God is not a merely innocent distortion of reality convincing? Does it help to support his overall conclusion about Gods existence, why or why not?

User_4945 added on 09/10/14 at 04:40 PM (PST):

can you please clarify which is question 1 and which is 2 so i can submit the assignment and release the payment
thank you