In the final analysis, Descartes, the rationalist, tried to proof the existence of the material and external objects around him by pointing at the existences of God, the innate ideas, and God is not a deceiver so he will not try to deceive him by giving Descartes the wrong information about all the external objects around him. However, John Locke, the empiricist, believe that all ideas come through experience and he would be against Descartes argument about the innate ideas and the existence of God because there are several people around the world who do not have any innate idea about God until they study about him, and also he someone lack an organ he or she will not be able to have any idea about any object in front of them. Finally, Locke has is a more convincing argument about the existence of material object through experience than Descartes’ argument.
J.O. Urmson). Whereas past moral theories had seen duties as laid down by God, Hume and Kant saw morality as rooted in humans themselves. However from here the theories diverge. Hume sees moral judgements as being caused by sentiments of pain or pleasure within an agent as reason alone can never motivate, whereas Kant see the only moral actions as being those caused by reason alone, or the categorical imperative.
The fourth Meditations of Descartes show that God cannot be a deceiver at all, as God is infinitely good. To judge something it is required to have understanding and will and we should know that the understanding is infinite or in other words it is the faculty, which brings us very close to God. Errors occur when will assents though it does not understand or perceive distinctly. So from this fact we can understand that error is ours and it is not committed by God. He also cannot be blamed for giving us an infinite will, as the will is nothing but a simple infinite entity.
Furthermore, proposition 16 demonstrates that God’s essence contains infinite things and infinite modes. By containing infinite things and infinite modes, by definition, there is nothing that could exist outside of Go... ... middle of paper ... ...rtes. By rejecting Descartes objection of the possibility of more than one substance, Spinoza’s is able to preserve his argument for substance monism, and thus, the impossibility of things being other than the way they are. In conclusion, in 1p33s2 of the Ethics, Spinoza argues against the traditional view that things could have been created by God in some other way or order when he states “All things depend on God’s power. So in order for things to be able to be different, God’s will would necessarily also have to be different.
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.
However, he also believes that we were created by God and that we our morally obligated to preserve ourselves and the rest of humankind. How he can come to this conclusion when he believes we have no pre-knowledge of anything is somewhat disturbing. If we only perceive things with our senses, or though our own mind reflection how is this logic possible? It seems to be a contradiction in th... ... middle of paper ... ...tainly possessed these qualities of life even with all is idiosyncrasies Locke believed we were all created equal that this was “self-evident”. Locke’s’ reason was to abide by the laws of God as well as the government.
The basis of this theory is that God is the lawmaker and as devout free agents, we choose to follow His commands. Morality is determined by the commandments of God. Morally right is considered as that which is commanded by God and morally wrong is that which is forbidden by God (Rachels, p.50). God does not compel us to obey His commands and therefore this theory contains some attractive features. One of the attractive features is that it solves the problem of objectivity in morality (Rachels, p. 50).
One of these ideas was the fact that God must exist because he is a perfect entity, and without a perfect entity existing, he would not be able to think about perfection. He argues that it is possibly to clearly perceive God because he exists, and then argues that because we clearly perceive God, he must exist. This argument is poorly thought out, and is considered a circular argument. There is no solid justification as ... ... middle of paper ... ... absence of God or something to create everything. Kant argues that humans can never have knowledge of something in metaphysics, because it is not something he or anyone can prove in space, time or causation.
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 minds did not exist to perceive things then how could anyone know anything? In conclusion, I have established that it’s possible to know things from the external world even if god is not the base of knowledge. One of Berkeley strongest argument was that knowledge and god go hand to hand. Through several arguments that I made I have proven that god is not essential for the course of knowledge. Believing that god is the one who makes us have ideas, without concrete proof would be reckless.