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. Before I begin to prove my thesis I would like to give a little background about skepticism and external world (material world). In this paper, skepticism argues that there is no way that we could know anything and that we live in a place where “knowing” is not possible. Additionally, the material world refers to something that can be perceived, in addition, being the world that we currently interact with. You might ask yourself, “What are the things that are in this certain world?” Well, basically everything that is not the mind is considered to be part of this world.
As the argument is reliant on this assumption, it falls apart as the deductions made are based on this whole concept. To counter this, the philosopher Malcolm disagrees with Kant by saying that existence can be a property of a necessary being such as God. The same concept can’t be applied to contingent beings, such as coins, because they are imperfect beings. I don’t believe this to be valid however, as we don’t know for certain anything about God’s properties. Aquinas believes, as humans we don’t have the intellect to prove God’s existence Overall, this shows that the ontological argument doesn’t prove God’s existence, as existence can’t be a predicate, so any deductions made from this assumption can’t form valid conclusion... ... middle of paper ... ...esses his suspicion of the argument as it “lacks a single piece of data from the real world”.
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.
The cosmological argument is however not a valid argument in explaining the existence of god because the conclusions do not logically follow the premises. The main point in the cosmological argument is the first cause. As stated (by Aquinas) the world... ... middle of paper ... ...he conclusion does not logically follow. If nothing is self creating, god for whatever reason should not be an exception. Aquinas first way suggested thing in motion are put in motion something.
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.
To illustrate the weak points in McCloskey’s article, I will start with his use of “proofs”. McCloskey uses “proofs” in his arguments when combating against whether God is real. He believes since it cannot be proved that God exists that anything that cannot be proven is invalid and should be omitted (On Being an Atheist, 1968). Dr. Mark Foreman says when arguing if something is true, do not use “proofs” as no matter what nothing can be proved including God (Foreman, 2012). Nothing can be positively proved throughout the universe, so the method of proving is invalid.
He states this because he feels that since the world is imperfect than God cannot possibly be perfect. If he were perfect, then the world would be perfect. However, because evil exist, God cannot exist, therefore we must live in this world as it is, and except the ludicrousness of life. His arguments are not logical or are they sound, and it will be complicated and interesting to argue against him and his views. “Proofs” Throughout his article, McCloskey, uses the word “proof” when discussing his arguments he believes, cannot definitively establish a case for the existence of God.
Infinity makes it impossible to have a first efficient cause, but if there is no first cause, there would be no intermediate cause (universe), and we (nature) would not exist. In the ontological argument, St Anselm provides an argument that is based on logic. In order to understand his argument you must first ... ... middle of paper ... ... should be like (beliefs) in order to fill the Gap of the unknown with ideas about God. Having Faith would make reason understand God. Doubt exists in the believer and the non-believer because it is beyond our reason to determine the truth of God's existence.
Skeptics believe that is impossible to verify truth, thus we can have no knowledge since do not have truth(Henry 2002,101-102). They do believe that we can have beliefs, as seen by the fact that they believe we cannot have ... ... middle of paper ... ...e was an agreement. But if it was only a second than it cannot be considered knowledge as knowledge is always a true and can be maintained as such. Therefore the agreement is not knowledge as it is not able to remain true, even if such an agreement had been made. Due to this Henry’s argument is incorrect.
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. McCloskey also addresses in his article the cosmological argument and how it can be disproven. In the article “On Being an Atheist”, McCloskey talks about why there does not need to be a cause to the universe and how it began. But, according to the book “Philosophy of Religion”, by Evans and Manis, both authors suggest the idea of ... ... middle of paper ... ... who then are we as humans accountable to morally? In conclusion, McCloskey attempted to defeat the cosmological and teleological argument and tried to persuade the readers to embrace the view of atheism.