However, Evans and Manis suggest there are beings in this world that are unaware of how they came to exist. These beings are often contingent on another being. Th... ... middle of paper ... ...were made to always do what is right then free will would truly not exist. It is evident that McCloskey’s arguments in an attempt to disprove the existence of God lacks evidence. He disputes the existence of God based on a lack of undisputable evidence, but he provides no undisputable evidence to counter this existence.
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.
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.
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.
Anselm wanted to understand the object of the belief. He is also not trying to defend his belief against the atheist and neither is he trying to convince the atheist that God exists. The ontological argument differs from other arguments in favour of God as it is an ‘a priori’ deductive argument, a priori meaning that can come to a conclusion by the use of reason and not proof. A deductive argument means that if the premises that are put into the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. Thus, Anselm tends to base his argument on the definitions and terminology used.
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.
Proof may be impossible, due to so many difficulties with any particular proof and because of the assumptions we make in order to prove things. These assumptions are that human reason is reliable and that our language actually corresponds to the common world. If this is not the case, then how can anything be proven? But perhaps, using Kant's argument, proof is not needed for the existence of God, because faith is more important.
Evaluating the Arguments for God's Existence No one can prove to anyone the existence of God, as in a mathematical proof. In my opinion the theory of reason is too limited to know anything beyond human experiences. Throughout history many rational arguments have been put forward but if you don’t believe in God, you never will. The cosmological argument is a classical argument for the existence of God. It is also referred to as the first cause argument.
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.