The paradox of the stone is an argument that is simple but implies big meaning, it states that if god is omnipotence, all-powerful, as described then he can create a stone that even he can’t lift. This very simple statement has been a major argument in favor of atheism, if you agree with the paradox then that means you think god is not all-powerful because he can’t lift a stone. Others like Christians disagree that this goes wrong in few different ways, some think the problem is with the word omnipotence and what that entails, others argue that the use of the word can’t with god is impossible because he is almighty and can do anything, and a few suggest that comparing god to people is where the argument goes wrong. The argument dates back about …show more content…
If god is faced with the scenario of making a stone he can’t lift and he decided to make such a stone I believe he could lift it. If we look at the scenario and forgive it for being irrational like Thomas Aquinas thought, I believe you can come to the conclusion that Rene Descartes came up with. As stated Rene said god could create the stone and lift it, but I don’t think this come from god doing the impossible but from his infinite power. If god is infinitely powerful as I stated then what is stopping him from giving himself more power to lift the stone that at his earlier power was impossible. I then again believe that the paradox is incorrect in its rational thinking and attempts to cap god’s …show more content…
This premise is trying to compare god the being who can complete any task, to a normal person. This conflicts directly with Aquinas definition of omnipotence because it is logically possible for a person, so why isn’t it for god. I still think that his definition is correct because it is not logical to compare a person to an
Omnipotence being. I think another argument could be made here that god would be doing more than carving a stone out of the earth but perhaps creating one. The paradox of the stone is an odd thing, if god wanted to keep his omnipotence he could just not create the stone therefore not be challenged. If we look at the scenario in a logical way if a being with all power was faced with this scenario and wanted to keep being all powerful it could just not create the stone. Which I believe is an error in the paradox’s thinking that this would either take gods omnipotence or create an illogical answer. This should help prove that the argument isn’t
The first argument comes from knowledge and extension. From knowledge, he says if he clearly and distinctly understand one thing as distinct from another then he is certain that he exists as a thinking thing but he still isn 't sure about the existence of his body. Therefore, he is a thinking thing and nothing else. From extension, he is a thing that thinks and not an extended thing but he has a distinct idea of body as an extended thing, therefore his mind is distinct from his body. The second argument he makes is that material objects exist. He can understand himself without imagination and sense, but he cannot understand imagination and sense without attributing them to a thing that thinks. Movement is also a power of mine but movement is a power only of extended things. This leads him to the conclusion that although he is essentially a thinking thing, he is not only a thinking thing. He also has an extended body that we are certain of. We not only have the power of passive sense but an active sense too. This active sensing does not require intellect and comes to us against our will. Therefore, it is either God or and external extended body and since God is no deceiver, material objects
To defend the lord’s existence, he begins by presenting the argument that God is “something that than which nothing greater can be though” (432). This is apparent as God trumps all things that exist in this world as He is the creator therefore, the greatest of all. Certainly, if He is greater than what can be thought, then for the same reason He must
Descartes goes on to prove the existence of God in two different ways. His arguments rely on that fact that we have a clear and distinct idea of God. The first way is the cosmological proof where the idea that something cannot come from nothing because something has to exist in order to create something else. As a finite being, it would be impossible for us to come up with an idea for something or someone
At this point Descartes has yet to completely remove the hyperbolic doubt. How is it that Descartes can remove what seems to be an un-removeable doubt? His answer---he is going to prove that God exists and that God is not a deceiver. In other words, in order to get rid of the evil genius, Descartes must show that such a being could not exist. The only way to do this effectively, holds Descartes, is to prove that another being, namely a God who is not a deceiver, does exist. If such a God exists, then an omnipotent Evil Genius is not possible.
Another way that St. Anselm's argument differs from other arguments is that it requires that you look at a definition of the concept of God. As Sober says, the definition of an object does not, in itself, prove its existence. Some examples he gives are unicorns and golden...
For instance, deception only relies on imperfection, while that is not God, which makes God a non-deceiver. The idea of God is something that would not just come naturally. It is not ordinary living and just thinking of God. The idea of God as a whole must be created by God. If humans are finite, and God is infinite, how could one possibly have the thought of such an infinite being?
There are many wonders of the world. There is the Great Wall of China, the Coliseum, the Hagia Sophia, the Taj Mahal, and many other places across the globe that has struck wonder into the world. Yet there is a place that not even the smartest of scholars cannot seem to understand. On a grassy piece of land in England there are heavy stones that stand tall, placed side-by-side and some even lay upon one another. It is known as the Stonehenge. Many people have heard of it, and many people have theories of why these stones are standing there today. Yet no one seems to know the exact purpose of this monument. There are many other scholars who have theories about the Stonehenge being used for religious purposes as well. My theory is that the purpose of the Stonehenge for religious and ritualistic.
According to Descartes, “because our senses sometimes deceive us, I wanted to suppose that nothing was exactly as they led us to imagine (Descartes 18).” In order to extinguish his uncertainty and find incontrovertible truth, he chooses to “raze everything to the ground and begin again from the original foundations (Descartes 59).” This foundation, which Descartes is certain to be the absolute truth, is “I think, therefore I am (Descartes 18).” Descartes argues that truth and proof of reality lies in the human mind, rather than the senses. In other words, he claims that the existence of material objects are not based on the senses because of human imperfection. In fact, he argues that humans, similarly to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, are incapable of sensing the true essence or existence of material objects. However, what makes an object real is human thought and the idea of that object, thus paving the way for Descartes’ proof of God’s existence. Because the senses are easily deceived and because Descartes understands that the senses can be deceived, Descartes is aware of his own imperfection. He
In the Third Meditation, Descartes forms a proof for the existence of God. He begins by laying down a foundation for what he claims to know and then offers an explanation for why he previously accepted various ideas but is no longer certain of them. Before he arrives at the concept of God, Descartes categorizes ideas and the possible sources that they originate from. He then distinguishes between the varying degrees of reality that an idea can possess, as well as the cause of an idea. Descartes proceeds to investigate the idea of an infinite being, or God, and how he came to acquire such an idea with more objective reality than he himself has. By ruling out the possibility of this idea being invented or adventitious, Descartes concludes that the idea must be innate. Therefore, God necessarily exists and is responsible for his perception of a thing beyond a finite being.
While evaluating this argument, I importantly considered the truth in Descartes’ premises that lead to his conclusion of the existence of material bodies. Initially, I was skeptical and in my evaluation, I put great thought into whether or not God, or some creature, could be the cause for why material bodies exist. In my thinking, I backtracked to Descartes’ arguments of the third and fifth meditations. Critical to Descartes’ reason is his belief that God cannot be a deceiver. Descartes describes God as a being of complete perfection, which is subject to no defects whatsoever. God, who has all perfections and no imperfections, cannot be a deceiver for the reason that deceit is an imperfection and a lack of goodness. Within this, I realized
Descartes’ first two Meditations are arguably the most widely known philosophical works. Because of this, one can make the error of assuming that Descartes’ method of doubt is self-evident and that its philosophical implications are relatively minor. However, to assume this would be a grave mistake. In this paper, I hope to spread light on exactly what Descartes’ method of doubt is, and how, though it furnishes challenges for the acceptance of the reality of the external world, it nonetheless does not lead to external world skepticism.
In outline, this argument is: God must exist because it is true that I have the idea of a supremely perfect being and it is contradictory to even try to conceive of such a being not existing (since this is less than perfect). What Descartes is saying, in effect, is that existence is a part of the definition of God and so to say God does not exist is to say the being who exists does not exist. Since this is obviously contradictory, we are forced to deny that it could be true (and hence accept that God does
In works based on the Christian religion God is often portrayed as all-knowing and all-powerful. This is how God is portrayed
...roofs of God’s existence are basically the same in that they are all, essentially, examples of cause and effect. This cause and effect does not neccesarily prove there is a God but it does lead one to wonder what may be the highest cause, and for this there is no proof.
“Cogito ego sum” - this is a famous quote from Rene Descartes. This quote means," I think, therefore, I am." His beliefs are considered to be epistemological and he is also considered as the father of modern philosophy. In his letter of meditation, he writes about what he believes to be true and what is not true. He writes about starting a new foundation. This meant that he was going to figure out what is true and what is false.