That question is the one raised by absurdism. Being, how can we derive meaning when nothing that exists has meaning, nothing exists on purpose, and therefore human life is absurd. Spinoza’s substance monism directly confronts this question by asserting the claim that there is essentially meaning in life because we are all a part of one substance which is God. However, while this may seem like it directly refutes the absurdist’s claim that nothing in existence has meaning it does not. The issue with the solving of this problem is in Spinoza’s definition of God.
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.
Epictetus’s god does not merely possess these qualities, but he is goodness, he is rationality itself. That is the defining difference between the good of Epictetus’s god and that of a personal god. The texts make it clear that Epictetus sees god as all powerful. He describes god as being the artificer of the universe and that no one could possibly possess power equal to god (Discourses 6:10, 14:11). This could be interpreted as a personification of god because being an “artificer” and the ab... ... middle of paper ... ...e of ourselves, but simply to preserve ourselves as nature intended (Discourses 8:23).
First assumption being the existence of God; for it is said that He, which was in the beginning, is the one who creates something from nothing. The very sentences, "in the beginning God created," asserts the beginning of things and time. While it is understood that there is no empirical proof of the existence of God but creation itself, and belief in such a theory is based on faith alone. One can not argue the probability of a higher being possibly being responsible for such a complex and magnificent design. Proof of the designer is in the design itself.
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. Therefore, God necessarily exists. --The potentiality of non-existence is a negation of power, and contrariwise the potentiality of existence is a power, as is obvious. --In this last proof, I have purposely shown God's existence a posteriori, so that the proof might be more easily followed, not because, from the same premises, God's existence does not follow a priori. Imperfection, on the other hand, does annul it; therefore we cannot be more certain of the existence of anything, than of the existence of a being absolutely infinite or perfect --that is, of God.
1. al-Ghazali and Averroës’ conceptions of divine knowledge differ in significant ways. So much so that Averroës considered it appropriate to compose a document naming al-Ghazali’s thoughts as incoherent. Their concepts of causality led each to hold differing views of God. For al-Ghazali, God is the first cause from which all creation necessitates according to His will. al-Ghazali asserts that God created the world out of nothing, creatio ex nihilo, and that God is the agent of true action.
From this one can learn several things about the cause, that It in itself is eternal and self-sufficient. It is completely illogical to believe that this ordered world was created accidentally. “Nothing comes from nothing” a song lyric from a popular ... ... middle of paper ... ...om this, one can firmly believe that there is a God, who is the intelligence, designer, and creator of the universe. However even with all of these different proofs, one cannot fully ever comprehend the majesty of God. For non-infinite beings cannot understand an infinite God.
The core of God is confined in the idea of existence just like the essence of a triangle revolves around its three sides (Platinga 11). Over the years, there have been various interpretations given on what Descartes really meant in his ontological argument. However, most of given interpretations only examines the simple meaning of existence but Descartes arguments looks at existence in relation to the perfection of God. In short, what Descartes is claiming is that there is no any other way that he can examine the context of G... ... middle of paper ... ...ne that is non-existent, it is based on confusion. As Kant puts it, existence is not predicate, an asset or a substance that can be said to possess or lack certain traits.
(Anselm p.395) I believe that this is where Anselm takes a giant leap of faith. In conclusion to whether Anselm's definition of God gives actual proof of God's existence, I believe that the only way to believe that God actually exists is by having true faith in him. Although, Anselm gives many possible reasons for God's existence. Most of these reasons are rather vague and unbelievable.
How can anyone rationally conclude that there is a God from the simple statement that a first cause is necessary for the existence of anything? A first cause does not prove God, it only assumes that there is a God, at best. Could one not put matter in the place of God in St. Aquinas’s argument and still assume there is a first efficient cause? The theory that matter “is”, is just as plausible as the theory that God “is”. Matter is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning nor end.