As explained in the text, if it is possible for humans to know that some thing is able to be done without explanation, then that is just God’s will and it is able to be done, even if it is against his will. So people take it to the limit and commit these acts just to see the results and for the drive of actually executing them. Anyways, if it is so forbidden and no one has done it, it might not even be true. The only way to figure this out is to do it and see the results. For example, a mother tells her son if goes into the cemetery ghosts will come out. The son will be curious to know if that could even happen, so he tries it out. And the action of him trying it out can be compared to any evil or sin committed by others. It is indeed a very sinful way to look at things, but that is just the way it is and you must deal with it. People have been this way and will continue to be this way. Take a look at Eve and the apple. Eve was told not to eat it but did and died and was punished. There will always be a consequence for actions and people will test that from now till forever.

2 (b)(i). Arguments that attempt to prove God’s existence from the appearance of order in nature are inductive arguments. Such arguments establish their conclusion’s truth beyond possible doubt, since…these arguments make the most sense in common belief toward the reason God has created and existed on this earth. When in decision if there is a god or not the inductive thinkers must decide on difficult reasoning. In order to overcome these difficulties there is necessary either an act of the will, a religious experience, or the judgment of the misery of the world without God. With these options figured out the believer then makes a decision by the will of their heart.

3 (i)(iv). Deductive arguments attempt to establish their conclusion as a truth that is beyond any possible doubt, so that when a deductive argument is entirely successful at doing what it purports to do, the truth of its conclusion becomes known for all eternity and immune to future refutation. Anselm’s ontological proof seems to work only because it presupposes that others will continue with this belief and let it go on with others that will take the “truth” of the conclusions. Anselm’s argument acts as a proof of God’s existence. Anselm starts with a proposition that does not depend on experience for assurance and then continues on by a fully logical meaning and explanation to the conclusion that God exists. He is mainly trying to prove wrong the people that understand the existence of God but does not believe in it. Anselm is trying to prove that you can not understand that he exists but at the same time not believe in him.

Such attempt to prove from our concept of God that God necessarily exists in reality is perpetual and absolutely necessary. Although it is a hard task to complete. Putting Anselm in a very difficult situation.