Therefore, I can also think of God as non-existing and by Spinoza’s seventh axiom it is clear that Gods essence does not involve existence. Since I can think of God as non-existing then it follows that the God does not have to exist. Therefore, the one substance that is everything does not have to exist because everything has the potential to not
But substance of another nature could have nothing in common with God (by Prop. ii. ), and therefore would be unable either to cause or to destroy his existence. "As, then, a reason or cause which would annul the divine existence cannot be drawn from anything external to the divine nature, such cause must perforce, if God does not exist, be drawn from God's own nature, which would involve a contradiction. To make such an affirmation about a being absolutely infinite and supremely perfect, is absurd; therefore, neither in the nature of God, nor externally to his nature, can a cause or reason be assigned which would annul his existence.
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.
The Proof of the Existence of God There are many arguments that try to prove the existence of God. In this essay I will look at the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, empirical arguments such as the avoidance of error and the argument from design. There are many criticisms of each of these that would say the existence of God can’t be proven that are perhaps stronger than those saying it can be. The definition of God for which is being argued is the Christian God who has the qualities of being perfect and who created the universe. The ontological argument follows that God id perfect and no greater being is imaginable.
The best explanation to the existence of God through St. Aquinas’s argument is that God does not exist as the first efficient cause. The argument for God, as presented by St. Aquinas, attempts to show that the existence of the world and everything within it can only be explained if there is a God who is the first efficient cause. The argument states that it is impossible for any being to be the efficient cause of itself because then it would have to bring itself into being, and to bring itself into being, it would have to exist before it existed. If a being exists, it is because some being before it caused it to exist. Therefore, if no first cause exists, neither will any other being exist.
In conclusion, the ontological argument can’t prove God’s existence, as it is founded on the basis that you already believe in God. As Kant says, you can’t say that existence is a predicate, which once taken into consideration, undermines the basis of the logic of the argument. As a whole the weaknesses of the argument outweigh the strength so therefore, no, the ontological argument does not prove God’s existence.
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. Descartes views God in a similar way to St. Anselm. Descartes sees God as the perfectbeing while St. Anselm describes God as “that than which nothing greater can be thought.” In Descartes “the Argument from Perfection” he reasons that if existence is one of the perfections and God has all the perfections, then God must exist. Along with these arguments others in the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic communities have similar views. Cosmological arguments are... ... middle of paper ... ... one time was not in existence, it has parts that were put together to form the watch, each one of those parts had to be formed and then they were all fit together in harmony to form the watch by the watchmaker.
For Descartes there can exist only one such being and that is God, and this is what he stands to prove. Descartes points out that in order for any effect to occur, its cause must own the effect itself, and this he calls “causality” (Tutorial for PLS3702, 2014:17) In order to prove the existence of God, Descartes employs two arguments, the cosmological and ontological. The cosmological argument makes inference from certain alleged facts about the world, (cosmos) about the existence of a unique and perfect being, God (Reichenbach, 2014:1). Descartes is aware of such a unique and perfect being, and this awar... ... middle of paper ... ...nal faith. 5.
However, a thing cannot possess a characteristic unless it first exists. In his reply to Descartes's argument, Gassendi complains that "... ... middle of paper ... ...trying to demonstrate, namely that a most-perfect being must exist in order to be a most-perfect being. Last, predicating the existence of God as a divine attribute seems to be unhelpful in addressing His actual existence. Descartes needs to arrive at God's existence through empirical means that do not rely on a restatement of the problem in the form "if x then x" as a solution to God's actual existence. Works Cited Barnes, Jonathan.
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.