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. God is not all-controlling, this allows mankind to have free will. The multiverse exist though human choices. My initial proposal to the argument of free will and omniscient was relied on necessary true, and this coincided with Nelson Pike’s explanation. This eventually leads to a fatalistic view that concludes no human actions are voluntary if one is believing in God.
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.
One must definitely consider the epistemological questions, or the "How do we know what we know?" questions. One must also consider how God should be defined, especially since the definition and concept of God is so central to Anselm's point. I take the position that knowledge is belief that is reasonably and logically supported. Knowledge approaches truth, or the actuality, but is not necessarily true.
Throughout this proof, Descartes is trying to use God’s existence as a way of affirming that which he clearly and distinctly perceives. However, he is also trying to prove God’s existence by claiming that the idea of God is a clear and distinct perception. Without inquiring into the existence of God, “it appears I am never capable of being completely ... ... middle of paper ... ...hat God too exists" (Descartes, 34). Descartes proof of the existence of God is derived from his establishment that something cannot come from nothing. Because God is a perfect being, the idea of God can be found from exploring the different notions of ideas.
Ontological arguments are a priori, which show that God exists without appealing to a sense experience. These ontological arguments argue about what God is to where he is from. St. Anselm, the creator of the ontological argument, based his theory on that we cannot think of anything greater than God. Therefor God must exist, why you might ask? If the greatest thing that we can conceive does not exist than we can still conceive the greatest thing that does exist, and that would be God.
This paper will attempt to state and explain the Cartesian Ontological Argument, its most promising lines of objection and some of the replies to these objections. Before studying the argument, it is important to notice that this type argument, unlike causal or teleological arguments, tries to be based on reason alone, not observation. Descartes considers that his a priori claims can derive the existence of God from the very concept of God. The Cartesian Ontological Argument can be formulated as follows: (1) God is that being than which nothing more perfect can be conceived upon. (2) Existence is a perfection.
A property of something should give more information about what is being described such as sayi... ... middle of paper ... ...God and that we should not and cannot try to prove his existence because of this (AR V11 180; CSM 11 127, as cited in J. Cottingham, 1986). Belief is a question of faith. For those who believe in God do not feel it necessary to prove his existence as their faith is enough for them. To a person who’s belief is so certain and so strong, God’s existence cannot be denied even without proof. But on the other hand, God’s existence can not be proved in terms of objective arguments and scientific facts.
In the New Merriam Webster Dictionary, sophism is defined as a plausible but fallacious argument. In Rene Descartes Meditation V, he distinguishes the existence of God, believing he must prove that god exists before he can examine any corporeal objects outside of himself. By proving that the existence of God is not a sophism, he also argues that God is therefore the Supreme Being and the omnipotent one. His conclusion that God does exist enables him to prove the existence of material things, and the difference between the soul and the body. Ideas, innovations, and inventions are all created from brilliant minds.
The second argument was by Epicurus, He believed that if there is a God he should be able to prevent future evil in the world that God can stop evil and chooses not to stop it. I think, in my opinion, agree with people who argue in believe of God's existence. In conclusion, we have seen on the basis of both philosophical argument and scientific confirmation that it is plausible that the universe began to exists. Given the intuitively obvious principle that the universe has a cause of its existence. On the basis of our argument, this cause would have to do uncaused, eternal, changeless, timeless, and immaterial.
As Mortimer puts it, things are right “because God commands it”(Mortimer 3). The value of right and wrong come from the words of God, not because they are intrinsically good themselves. If morals were intrinsically good or bad without God, then they would have had to exist before God. This would not hold up with the Divine Command Theory because in paragraph 3, Mortimer conveys that God was to exist first and is the source and creator of all. Creation of everything would include both moral truths and their morality.