If we examine independently the arguments presented by McCloskey they too lack adequacy to establish the nonexistence of God. McCloskey begins by addressing the cosmological argument. He proposes that the existence of the world itself does not give reason to believe in a necessarily existing being. McCloskey believes there is a lack of evidence to show the world had a cause and that God was that cause. However, Evans and Manis suggest there are beings in this world that are unaware of how they came to exist.
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.
For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument. Another issue with Descartes' philosophy is that he wanted to reconcile scientific and religious views, which is wrong since the two maintain completely different foundational beliefs and they should exist exclusively- without relation to the other. Thirdly, he believed that the mind was the Self and the Soul, failing to recognize that humans have bodies and the outside world exists, and through which we gain our knowledgeable. Lastly, Descartes argues that ideas are all innate while they actually are not- we gain knowledge through experience. Firstly, Descartes made the mistake of supporting a conclusion with premises that can only be true if the conclusion was a premise for the other premises that were supporting it.
For many, the idea of existence as a predicate causes issues for the ontological argument. In the argument Anselm states that God is a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and using logic he comes to the conclusion that God must exist by definition. This can be seen as strength to the argument as if it is a valid deduction it proves God’s existence to an atheist as well as a believer. However, Kant counters this argument by saying that existence could not be a predicate of anything. This is because a predicate should be something that enriches our concept of what the thing is like.
Aquinas says that there must be a cause of this and it is God. The last way that Aquinas proves God comes from the governance of the world. Aquinas says that things in the world lack knowledge and yet they still work their way towards an end, but he says that it is impossible for something to lack knowledge and work its way to an end. Due to this fact Aquinas determines that there must be some intelli... ... middle of paper ... ...that logic to explain God to him he would laugh in his face. Although these arguments may prove their point in a construed way there are some who believe the Ontological Argument to be impossible, one of these being Kant.
Kant argues that humans can never have knowledge of something in metaphysics, because it is not something he or anyone can prove in space, time or causation. He instead considers that God is a possibility but not a necessity for certainty, for he cannot be certain of God’s existence. I completely agree with Kant on these two points, for they would be seemingly impossible to prove wrong. However, if more research was done into all three researchers I would be able to more thoroughly explain their positions on God, and exactly how they justify or dismiss the idea that God is important to reality. Especially on Locke my interview with Rich Dettmer was not clear enough to understand exactly how he proves God’s existence.
Demea responds by stating that we are only a speck in the whole universe limited to only what we can see. What seems evil to us now may not be evil for we cannot see how everything will end. Once we look at everything as a whole, we must make the connections and understand that with God in charge, everything will work out for the best. We cannot say that God is evil when we are only looking at the world from our point of view for we cannot see the ultimate goal which God seems to have in mind. After analyzing what Demea states, one finds that he is unknowingly on the same page as Philo.
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.
Thus, Anselm tends to base his argument on the definitions and terminology used. Anselm’s first form of the argument is that God is "that than which none greater can be conceived". Firstly, it must be emphasised that Anselm’s definition does not limit God to being the "greatest" but makes it known that nothing greater can be thought than God himself. Therefore, God should not in any way be linked to terms such as ‘omnipotent’ as terminology such as this limit him to what he really is. With this definition, he attempts to prove that not only does God exist in the mind but also in reality.
If there were no first mover then it would have been impossible to start motion. God is not a ‘specific’ mover, the title of God simple belongs to the being that is the first mover. Going off this argument, another questi... ... middle of paper ... ...than it is about God. It ruins the flow that St. Thomas previously establishes. The proof talks about goodness, truth, and nobility, which on there own are not proofs that God exists; they are morals.