Berkeley`s states that everything is an idea and that there has to be a supreme spirit (god) out there that has the ability to put ideas in our mind. Thus, being the one who controls everything that we are able think. The way that I understood Berkeley`s argument is that he believes that the existence of “God” is essential in order to know anything from the external world. Comprehending Berkeley`s argument wasn’t an easy task, but I have come to my personal conclusion that this so called; “Supreme spirit” is not necessary for me to have knowledge about the things that I can observe. Therefore in this paper, I will argue that Berkeley`s response to skepticism is not successful because he thinks that god is the base of knowledge.
Anselm wanted to understand the object of the belief. He is also not trying to defend his belief against the atheist and neither is he trying to convince the atheist that God exists. The ontological argument differs from other arguments in favour of God as it is an ‘a priori’ deductive argument, a priori meaning that can come to a conclusion by the use of reason and not proof. A deductive argument means that if the premises that are put into the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. Thus, Anselm tends to base his argument on the definitions and terminology used.
My view of these arguments and the Ontological argument as a whole is that it is a weak argument. If I had to choose sides between Anselm or Gaunilo and Kant I think I would choose Gaunilo and Kant because they do a better job of arguing their point. If I were questioning the existence of God and had Anselm’s argument to read and then Kant’s to read I would probably end up ton believing that God existed. One reason being that you cannot understand Anselm’s argument and two he does not prove anything but the fact that God is a supreme being than which no greater can be conceived. It is because of this why I believe the Ontological argument to be a bad way to prove God to anyone.
McCloskey’s article labels these arguments as “proofs” and concludes none of these arguments would be evidence of God’s existence. I find McCloskey’s article to lack logic and coherence which only serves to invalidate his arguments. I find this little more than an attempt to justify his own atheistic worldview. Coherence is an essential part of the theist’s belief structure. The individual arguments when joined collectively hold just that, coherence.
In the article “On being an Atheist”, by H.J. McCloskey, the author first says that these arguments for theism are only “proofs” and cannot be truly proven. However, there are certain things that cannot be explained and therefore an individual can use “the best explanation approach”. This approach suggests that since there are certain situations that cannot be explained, that situation can be said that it could possibly be caused by God. These things that cannot be explained such as the emergence of language in civilizations or the idea of an atom that we cannot neither see nor touch.
This argument is normally labeled as “Pascal’s Wager”. During this argument he explains why any rational being should believe in God, even though said rational being does not have sufficient evidence. Pascal argues that due to the available choices and following consequences the rational being is forced logically to believe in God. The following is an explanation and critical evaluation of this philosophically important argument. One of the first issues that Pascal wants to make sure is covered is that his argument is not for the existence of God, but instead it is intended to argue that it is more logically sound to believe in the God, than to deny his existence.
McCloskey in his article, "On Being An Atheist" claims that proofs or arguments which theists provide to support their belief “have no weight”. He speaks of this primarily in relation to the ontological argument, the argument which attempts to show that the very concept of God implies his reality. McCloskey believes that there is no point in debating on this particular proof because it has no bearing but the ontological argument serves as the very foundation for other arguments which supports and defends God’s existence. If not for the purpose of proving His existence, the ontological argument is still necessary because it distinguishes the characteristics of God whom we are defending. The first rule of philosophical discourse is clarity and since God is the main topic, there is no way in which we should avoid discussing the ontological argument.
With a goal or an aspiration, there is always the chance that we may not acquire it, which essentially makes us make every effort. Lastly, there is still the problem that proof of the existence of God is beyond the scope of all the moral arguments. The most that they could possibly establish is the existence of a being that makes laws, nothing more. In conclusion, we cannot use the moral argument to prove the existence of God. For those who already believe (in either God or morality as an objective law) then the moral argument may strengthen their belief, but it cannot prove to a non-believer that there is in fact a God.
After analyzing what Demea states, one finds that he is unknowingly on the same page as Philo. Cleanthes retorts by saying that his suppositions should never be acknowledged. He questions how any hypothesis can be proven if there is no way to tell if it is true. If one considers the likelihood of what Demea stated to be true, then we must be able to prove that it can be reality. He explains that the only way to defend divine benevolence is to oppose the evils that are sent upon us humans.
Namely, what follows from this argument is that humans in reality are not free because every action that they will is necessary, thus already pre-determined by God. What Augustine does not realize is that his argument actually proves that humans have no knowledge of being determined—but they are determined! Therefore, as I shall point out, God could have created a determined world, without evil, where beings act freely not knowing that they in fact are determined. I would like now to turn to my first ch... ... middle of paper ... ...y in question is able to do anything that it chooses to do. The second point is that the idea that God cannot create a world with free beings that never choose to do evil is contradictory if we consider the existence of Heaven, which allegedly is an evil-free place where beings are free to exercise their will and apparently never choose to do evil.