Yet how can anything be indubitable, save perhaps Descartes’ first principle, and even there some may be able to find flaws? It seems doubtful whether anything can be proven beyond any reas... ... middle of paper ... ..., then there is no thing that is easier to know than another. Descartes’ use of this approach is a false foundation as he does not see these complications. The underlying frailty of such rules is that it assumes absolute truths, without exceptions. I do not know of any truths that are absolute, and do not know of anyone who does.
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.
The first part of Hume’s claim can be seen as being an obvious truth. We can never see causal necessity, as we never have perceptions that tell us that, under the same conditions, a given cause must be followed by its usual effect. All we have is perceptions of things called causes followed by perceptions of things called effects. Let us look at an example to examine this notion more clearly. Take for instance, if we were to videotape a sequence of events involving cause and effect, e.g.
1- Why is Descartes certain that he exists? Has he proven that anyone else exists? He thinks he exists because if he doesn’t exit he wouldn’t doubt or thinking about his own existence. He has no prove of the existence of anyone he thinks and analyze so he exists. 2- Just before concluding that he himself exists, Descartes says this: "I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies."
Because he has the ability to think he exists, that proves he has something of existence in at least the non-physical world. “I have convinced myself that there is nothing in the world – no sky, no earth, no minds, and no bodies. Doesn’t it follow that I don’t exist? No, surely I exist if it’s me who is convinced of something,” (Norman 341). This existence in the non-physical world is accessed through his mind.
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.
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."
The only way to do this effectively, holds Descartes, is to prove that another being, namely a God who is not a deceiver, does exist. If such a God exists, then an omnipotent Evil Genius is not possible. How is it that Descartes goes about proving that God exists? His means are limited. He... ... middle of paper ... ...t length about how it is possible that we imagine things and ‘create’ things in our mind.
This can be seen in Hume’s first reason against the existence of miracles. He states that there has never been anyone attesting a miracle “of such unquestioned good-sense, education and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves” and persuade us that a violation of a natural law is possible. Hume suggests that whenever anyone has witnessed a “miracle” they have been deluded into thinking so and ... ... middle of paper ... ... natural laws have been broken it is just mere lucky coincidence that events have turned out as they are. It is difficult to conclude whether miracles do logically exist. It easier to believe that there are certain events that occur within our world that we cannot fully understand.
...I have convinced myself there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it follow now that I don't exist either? No. If I persuaded myself of anything, then certainly I existed.” Rene Descartes After all has been said perhaps the Decartesian articulation should be "dubito, ergo sum", as many skeptics have suggested. It is only by man’s ability to doubt that you one can affirm by positive thinking.