Infinity makes it impossible to have a first efficient cause, but if there is no first cause, there would be no intermediate cause (universe), and we (nature) would not exist. In the ontological argument, St Anselm provides an argument that is based on logic. In order to understand his argument you must first ... ... middle of paper ... ... should be like (beliefs) in order to fill the Gap of the unknown with ideas about God. Having Faith would make reason understand God. Doubt exists in the believer and the non-believer because it is beyond our reason to determine the truth of God's existence.
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.
McCloskey goes on in his article to state his position not needing to have a reason to believe in God just because the wor... ... middle of paper ... ...ost likely unintentional, does have a degree of faith in something. His faith appears to be in humanity and people, or in science and the evolutionary theory. In a way, atheism could certainly appeal to people because there is no moral standards that are found in theism, and there is something tangible (other people, themselves, etc) to see and believe. However, it is also worth examining that sometimes not believing in anything (atheism) would take more faith than believing in God (theism). Because with theism there is documentation that backdates and you can historically research the works of a God and see part of his plan that has unfolded, however, in atheism there is no greater being to believe.
Aquinas believes, as humans we don’t have the intellect to prove God’s existence Overall, this shows that the ontological argument doesn’t prove God’s existence, as existence can’t be a predicate, so any deductions made from this assumption can’t form valid conclusion... ... middle of paper ... ...esses his suspicion of the argument as it “lacks a single piece of data from the real world”. He also says that the argument is infantile because of this. Again, it comes back to the fact that not everyone will define God the same way, which is an intrinsic flaw in the argument. Overall, I think that the fact it is an a priori argument neither helps to prove or disprove the argument, as it can prove the argument to believers, for example, but not atheists. In conclusion, the ontological argument can’t prove God’s existence, as it is founded on the basis that you already believe in God.
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.
He states, “It is only once we have denied all falsehoods resulting from the outside world that we can begin a new structure of logic based strictly on definite truths. In order for our foundation to be firm, we must find a point which is certain and this point is within ourselves.” (Design) Descartes wants us to question everything, except God, because knowledge we gain from others is not certain since we did not acquire it firsthand. Descartes argued we can trust God, because God gives us clear and distinct ideas and since God can be trusted, then so can these thoughts. Therefore, God must exist for this to be true. Descartes believes God exists because he is perfect and if he were not perfect then he would not exist.
Anselm and Descartes do not fully provide evidence to prove that they have this clear idea of God. It is very much possible that this is completely false and then both arguments would be incorrect from the start. However, despite this I still believe Descartes argument is more persuasive, and one reason is because Anselm’s argument is very vague. For instance, Anselm never explains what it means for one thing to be ‘greater’ than something else. This definition is necessary in order to agree with Anselm’s premise that there exists things in reality which are greater than things that only reside in the understanding.
Finally, I will point out some complications and problems that exist within the proof. The basic problem with most religions in the world has always been that they presuppose faith; that is one cannot be reasoned into believing in a religion, if such was not the case then we would have seen a huge migration to one religion or another. In any given religion, the main proof of God’s existence is the fact that scriptures -- whichever ones they may be -- inform us of his existence and his powers. Then again, we only believe in these scriptures because we think that they come from God. Generally saying, this is a circular argument that cannot be used as a proof.
Another issue that Pascal takes time to address is the difference between the choices of does God exist and believing in God. The argument for if God exists allows for three choices. The fi... ... middle of paper ... ...s or prove that you truly have faith in God and not just using God as a “means-end”. This adds the problem of what would prove to be enough to truly prove to God that you are not using him as a “means-end”, since part of the definition of God is that he is knows all and thus would not be fooled by such shallow belief. Thus it becomes more that just a simple coin toss.
Skeptics believe that is impossible to verify truth, thus we can have no knowledge since do not have truth(Henry 2002,101-102). They do believe that we can have beliefs, as seen by the fact that they believe we cannot have ... ... middle of paper ... ...e was an agreement. But if it was only a second than it cannot be considered knowledge as knowledge is always a true and can be maintained as such. Therefore the agreement is not knowledge as it is not able to remain true, even if such an agreement had been made. Due to this Henry’s argument is incorrect.