Because God is a perfect being, the idea of God can be found from exploring the different notions of ideas. Descartes uses negation to come to the conclusion that ideas do not come from the world or imagination; because the world contains material objects, perfection does not exist. Descartes emphasizes the idea that his idea of God's existence does not originate from his senses. Rather than having created the idea himself, he states that God himself imprinted the idea on him. “Thus the only option remaining is that this idea is innate in me just as the idea of myself is innate in me” (Descartes, 34).
I will then try to argue that existence is a perfection and that as a predicate for God, existence reveal certain true about God. Ontological argument tries to prove the existence of God from a priori perspective, i.e., idea implanted in the human mind by God himself. The argument therefore depends on analytic reasoning, from premise to conclusion. Descartes believes that he has an inborn idea which he calls “innate” (p. 43). His ability to think did not cause the idea on his mind, but God’s free will to act.
In Meditations on First Philosophy Meditations III and V Rene provides arguments for the existence of God. Arguments for the Existence of god: If he can conceive of some idea with so much objective reality that it must come from some cause with more formal reality than he possesses, the Meditator reasons that he will then know that something outside his mind exists. God is an infinite substance whereas he is only a finite substance. Since the idea of God cannot have originated in himself, he concludes that God must be the cause of this idea and must therefore necessarily exist. God: his existence would immediately be perceived clearly and distinctly if it weren't for the confusions caused by the senses and preconceived opinions.
Descartes believes God exists because he is perfect and if he were not perfect then he would not exist. In short, Descartes thought that doubt will move the inquirer toward the elimination of error and, accordingly, certainty will be given to knowledge. Charles Peirce believed “only through the way of linguistic, logical and pragmatic signs considered as tools and objects can humans know about the natural world.” (Kremer... ... middle of paper ... ...n for his thinking. Peirce wants his thoughts to make sense on their own, without having to be applicable in all cases. Peirce is concerned with what is practical, not the theoretical, because what is theoretical is not real to Peirce.” (Design) In conclusion, neither view on knowledge is improbable.
The God, for them, is supreme, "needing nothing outside himself, but needful for the being and well-being of all things." (Pg. 305). St Anselm’s account of the ontological argument for the existence of God deals with the ‘existence in the understanding’ vs. ‘existence in reality.’ He defines God as the greatest conceivable or possible being. He adds that any person who hears this statement describing God understands what is meant.
He also cannot be blamed for giving us an infinite will, as the will is nothing but a simple infinite entity. How can we perceive something distinctly and clearly? According to Descartes it was possible for God to create him with an insurmountable inclination to assent only to those things, which were distinctly and clearly perceived by him, but God is infinite and His ways are inscrutable. Descartes writes in his Meditation IV that when he tries to find out about God, he feels that in reality a positive idea of God is already present in his mind and it is a supremely perfect being. But at the same time he encounters with a negative idea which gives him a since of nothingness.
In the final analysis, Descartes, the rationalist, tried to proof the existence of the material and external objects around him by pointing at the existences of God, the innate ideas, and God is not a deceiver so he will not try to deceive him by giving Descartes the wrong information about all the external objects around him. However, John Locke, the empiricist, believe that all ideas come through experience and he would be against Descartes argument about the innate ideas and the existence of God because there are several people around the world who do not have any innate idea about God until they study about him, and also he someone lack an organ he or she will not be able to have any idea about any object in front of them. Finally, Locke has is a more convincing argument about the existence of material object through experience than Descartes’ argument.
The ontological argument argues that if you understand what it means to talk about God, you will see His existence is necessarily true. Anselm defined God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived', hence God must exist. Anselm also believed that even atheist had a definition for God even just to disregard his existence; hence God exists in the mind. Anselm said this is so because that which exists in reality is greater than that which exists purely in the mind. In the words of Anselm, "Therefore, Lord, not only are You that than which nothing greater can be conceived but you are also something greater than can be conceived.
An example of his presumption of the existence of God would be the fact that if one cannot imagine a bookshelf without books. Whether one exists or not, it is true than that they cannot be separated from each other. Descartes follows by stating that “he cannot conceive God without existence, existence is inseparable from him.” After settling that God exists in his first few passages, Descartes adds that God is the perfect being. Due to the fact that he understands what a perfect being is, than God must be a sovereign being. Similar to his triangle theory that it is not a necessity to imagine a triangle.
Human beliefs are contingent true, because it could happen to be true and it could also have been false. Divine beliefs are necessary truth, by denying it, it will create a contradiction. Therefore, as logic dictates, my first proposition is if one believes in God, then no human action will be voluntary. However, noted that God is all-knowing, but it doesn’t mean God is all-controlling. For the sake of argument in a metaphysical sense, what if there were more than just one rea... ... middle of paper ... ...onditions: Since God is all-knowing, the multiverse can exist within God’s omniscience.