The Existing of Material objects according to Descartes and Locke Descartes started his Meditations by doubting all his ideas and believes, and his goal was to acquire a certain foundation of knowledge. Descartes, a rationalist, believes in innate ideas, which are built into us naturally and not dependent or derived by experiences. As an example, Descartes believes in the existing of God, a powerful and perfect. Also, as a perfect God; he will not try to trick or deceive people by making them believe that they are sensing a physical thing when there is in fact no such material thing; therefore God is not a deceiver, who gives people the right ideas. On the other side, John Locke, an empiricist, who believes that all ideas come from experience, raise an objection on Descartes premises of the innate ideas because Locke does not believe in such thing as ideas, which are built in us naturally and the reason of the of putting the right ideas is God for he is perfect.
His ability to think did not cause the idea on his mind, but God’s free will to act. Thereby, as the idea manifest itself to his mind intuitively; it reveals something about its author. The idea allows Descartes to think of a perfect being who must necessarily exist, namely God. In his epistemological quest for truth, through thought experiment, Descartes’ Meditations offers the reader a method of doubt that could be used in order to discover what is absolutely certain, and free oneself from the errors caused by misjudgments. Descartes’ purpose is to find indubitable truth.
Berkeley`s states that everything is an idea and that there has to be a supreme spirit (god) out there that has the ability to put ideas in our mind. Thus, being the one who controls everything that we are able think. The way that I understood Berkeley`s argument is that he believes that the existence of “God” is essential in order to know anything from the external world. Comprehending Berkeley`s argument wasn’t an easy task, but I have come to my personal conclusion that this so called; “Supreme spirit” is not necessary for me to have knowledge about the things that I can observe. 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.
One of the first issues that Pascal wants to make sure is covered is that his argument is not for the existence of God, but instead it is intended to argue that it is more logically sound to believe in the God, than to deny his existence. This is shown by Pascal’s statement; “But to which side shall we incline. Reason can decide nothing here (104).” This shows as previously stated Pascal is not trying to argue for God’s existence, but continues to argue for why it is more logically sound to believe than to not believe. Pascal gives reasons that it is impossible for any finite being to truly comprehend a being such as God, and that we as finite beings can never truly give a conclusive answer to if God exists. Another issue that Pascal takes time to address is the difference between the choices of does God exist and believing in God.
Just because there isn’t evidence for existence doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. Regardless, the fact of the matter is that God is the perfect way to prove the origin of all creat... ... middle of paper ... ...y and does not present any evidence disproving the existence of God. Being a theist myself, I can only defend my stance on the existence of God based on the knowledge I have acquired. It has been from the knowledge and reading scripture that I view God as the source of all comfort and that He indeed does exist. Works Cited  McCloskey, H.J.
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.
Human beliefs are contingent true, because it could happen to be true and it could also have been false. Divine beliefs are necessary truth, by denying it, it will create a contradiction. Therefore, as logic dictates, my first proposition is if one believes in God, then no human action will be voluntary. However, noted that God is all-knowing, but it doesn’t mean God is all-controlling. 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.
Aquinas, in the Summa Theologiae, stated that, “Man should not seek to know what is above reason.” His argument was, in very simple terms, that men need reason to understand all of God’s truths. Yet there are certain truths that are beyond reason which men can only understand through Divine Revelation, or faith. And sometimes there might be certain aspects of faith that one day reason might have been able to prove but only a few men would know and understand this, so it is necessary that all men know this through Divine Revelation and faith. In a personal point of view, I see this interpretation the same way that I see all explanantions of religious beliefs. Religion, in my definition, is a simple way to attain the answers to the mystery ... ... middle of paper ... ...roofs of God’s existence are basically the same in that they are all, essentially, examples of cause and effect.
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.
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.