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.
This eventually leads to a fatalistic view that concludes no human actions are voluntary if one is believing in God. Although, my second proposition is not supported Pike’s essay, but it is inspired by Boethius’ theory of human free will, which based on the condition necessity. Combine with the idea of the multiverse, this allows human to have free while still within the boundary of God’s omniscience. We are living in an age of constant changes, and new hypothesis will develop as we gain more knowledge on the ultimate reality.
I do not cause the existence of myself Descartes illustrates “I am not the reason I exist” from two perspectives: (1)Direct reason: If I am the reason I exist, it has an incredible conclusion “if I got my being from myself, I would not doubt, nor would I desire, nor would I lack anything at all. For I would have given myself all the perfections of which I have some idea; in so doing, I myself would be God!” (Descartes 32, 48) This means, I have great perfection, I do not need depend on anything else, if so, I become God, it is clearly impossible. Because it is harder for me to think about getting things that I lack than the things I have. On the other hand, it is more difficult for me to think I come from nothing than to acquire things I do not know. If I give this great thing to myself, I will not lack things that are easily to get, and I will not lack things I understand from the idea of God.
Modern theories of self-esteem established the idea of believing one’s abilities and worth or value. It is the extent to which one likes, accepts, and respects oneself (Masters & Wallace, 2011). Likewise, life is only genuinely satisfying if one is able to discover the value within. One of the most superlative ways of discovering this value is through nourishing strengths with the goal of contributing to the happiness of others. The concluding stage which is meaningful life pertains to the deep sense of fulfillment by employing the strengths not only for oneself.
All of these are what create the dimensions of success, which will bring inner fulfillment. We as human beings are made of mind, body, and spirit. Of these, spirit is the most important, for it connects us to the source of everything. In other words we can describe it as our conscience. The more clearly that we think, the more we will enjoy the abundance of the universe.
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.
The Existence of God For being accustomed in all other things to make a distinction between existence and essence, I easily persuade myself that existence may perhaps be separated from the essence of God, and thus God might be conceived as not existent actually. PROP. XI. God, or substance, consisting, of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists. "Proof.--If this be denied, conceive, if possible, that God does not exist: then his essence does not involve existence.
Anselm now draws his first intermediate inference based on these initial premises; God must exist in the understanding, and is therefore a possible being. Aneselm next draws on the premise that if something exists in reality, it is greater than if it exists in the understanding alone. At this point in his argument Anselm switches tactics and supposes that God exists only in the understanding. Based on the former premise this would mean that is possible that God (had He existed in reality) might have been greater than He is (existing only in the understanding). Based on that supposition, God is not the being than which none greater is possible.
Anselm seeks to find God with such fervor, such tenacity, that the only thing he accomplishes is not an understanding of God, but an understanding of his faith in God. The ontological argument in this respect is not important, but the actual search for Anselm’s “Creator” is imperative (1). Anselm was made to “behold God” and yet, he says “I never unto this day done that for the sake whereof I was created” (1). There is much more than a conceived God in the Proslogion.
By definition, nothing can be imagined as being greater than God. The next important phrase need to be understood is what it means to exist in the understanding. What this mean is that if someone understands a concept then that person has an understanding for that idea. This can be seen as if someone understands the concept of God, which is that nothing greater than God can be conceived, than that concept exits in that persons understanding. Another important thing to know is that existing in reality is greater then existing in only the understanding.