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.
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.
This counters everything that conservative Christians argue: that a society without God would be “hell on earth: rampant with immortality, full of evil, and teeming with depravity.” Neither of these extreme philosophies seem to be correct. A society that claims that there is no God, can, in fact be pleasant, as is evident with Sweden, Denmark and Scandinavia. However, a society without God cannot exist. This is because even if there is no external belief in God within a society, God still exists in that society. Camus once stated, “The silence of the universe has led me to conclude that the world is without meaning."
Furthermore, we know there is an abyss to be filled, because even the greatest doubts of the sceptics cannot deny that we exist since questioning whether we think is self-affirmative. We do exist; however, most individuals do so only realising the world of the finite. It is the realisation of the difference between the infinite and the finite - omniscience - that allows us to realise that the finite is nothing in relation to the infinite. Since God and truth are both nothingness in the finite, there is no way of describing them finitely; however, understanding the inability to distinguish these two concepts is precisely how one will understand them.
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.
Existentialism considers that any external existences, ranging from material existence, to spiritual existence, such as religion, morality, and ideology are meaningless because the existences of these issues could not be established without the identification of people’s will (Webber, 2012, 3). As indicated by Sartre (1943, 310), “Each existence and external power does not exist originally”. The statement of Sartre shows that the existentialism denies original being of any external existence. Reversely, the existentialism believes that what exists originally in the universe is our “being”, which actually highlights the existing value of human’s “being”. Based on this illustration, existentialists argue that since human is the only original “being” in the world, any other existences are factually constructed by human’s creativity activities and the being of external existences is relied on the identification of human on them.
This leads to the materialist assumption that people do not exist with their mind, soul or spirit (Morris p155). The essence of the materialist view is that a human being is made up of and functions by means of matter and every action or thing has physical means that it exists upon. “All things, no matter how many or of what variety, can be reduced to one unified thing in time, space, or quality” (Encyclopedia of Philosophy-Monism). There are different renditions of materialism known among modern philosophers. One rendition of materialism is called eliminative materialism.
The Cosmological Argument takes several forms but is basically represented below. Cosmological Argument Things exist It is possible for those things not to exist Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. Something cannot bring itself into existence because it would have had to exist to do that. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence, because an infinite regression of causes has no original cause, which means there is no cause of existence. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause, therefore there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
René Descartes is known for being the ultimate doubter. He believes that nothing we experience is trustworthy, because our senses do not show us the truth, and we don’t have the physical traits to observe the truth. From this he concludes that everything he experiences is inaccurate. Yet, he finds that there must be existence within him. This is because he sees a distinction between the physical world, and the non-physical world.
Events are caused; therefore there must have been a first cause. This first cause was God. Tennant said there are things in the world which are contingent. These are "might not have beens" because they might have not existed. Secondly, "The world is a real or imagined totality of individual objects, none of which contain within themselves a reason for their own existence."