Meditations on First Philosophy

In all, one should reject both that it is right because God commands it and God commands it because it is right. Whatever is “right” is good to the degree that it fulfills its purpose. Based upon God’s standard of goodness, this is true because He is the ultimate creator of everything. The Euthyphro Dilemma is not an atheistic view on religion or the existence of God by any means, but rather an issue for deeper thought. Overall, this leads us closer to believing in Christianity and more so, God Himself.

The Existing of Material objects according to Descartes and Locke Descartes started his Meditations by doubting all his ideas and believes, and his goal was to acquire a certain foundation of knowledge. Descartes, a rationalist, believes in innate ideas, which are built into us naturally and not dependent or derived by experiences. As an example, Descartes believes in the existing of God, a powerful and perfect. Also, as a perfect God; he will not try to trick or deceive people by making them believe that they are sensing a physical thing when there is in fact no such material thing; therefore God is not a deceiver, who gives people the right ideas. On the other side, John Locke, an empiricist, who believes that all ideas come from experience, raise an objection on Descartes premises of the innate ideas because Locke does not believe in such thing as ideas, which are built in us naturally and the reason of the of putting the right ideas is God for he is perfect.

It is only a mockery. Atheists fail to remember that the God who is being supported by the cosmological, teleological and moral argument is a God of reason.... ... middle of paper ... ...ant us that dream except God. He alone provided the promise of a life devoid from unhappiness, fear, hunger, despair and even death. He alone has the ability to grant true justice to anyone because of his capacity to see deep within a person’s heart. He alone has the power to do what we cannot do and that is comfort enough for any responsible theist.

It would seem man would be incapable of error because everything in oneself is from a perfect God. Therefore it would seem to indicate that we are perfect as well. Error obviously still exists, so Descartes goes on to say that “error as such is not something real that depends on God but rather is merely a defect” (Meditation Four, page 36). Error is not from God, but is based on humans using the tools from God of will and intellect incorrectly. God would never want us to error, so Descartes concludes that the source of error has to be ourselves.

Philo says that for God to exist he must not be anthropomorphized; God is blind to good and evil, he is an indifferent prime mover. God is all powerful, all knowing, but not all good. The dialogue provided by Demea, Cleanthes and Philo all conflict on the nature of God, but none of them conflict on the presence of a God. Thus, the fact of evil, to me, does not provide grounds for not believing in God, but instead provides grounds for reinterpreting Gods nature. I agree with Philo in that in order for God to coexist with evil, he must be lacking goodness.

As Anselm says, because of God’s ability to do an action that is always to his benefit and because he can not be impotent against anything, this reaffirms his all-powerfulness. God doing an impotent action is self-contradictory because he is the maximum and all-knowing, so he will never do this because it would take power away from Him and make him have the desire to do what is unacceptable of God, which is an action that goes against God himself. Anselm describes this power that is taken away from God if he does a impotent action as “adversity and perversity”, which just means anything that goes against God or is self-harming to Him (Anselm 74). His inaction is true omnipotence because he can, “do nothing through impotence and nothing can have power against You.”(Anselm 74) God’s inaction is one of the main reasons why he is omnipotent according to Anselm, and if he influences human life or anything then he is taking away alternate possibilities which make him less

However, unlike Boethius I don’t believe that God cannot do evil. If God is all powerful then of course he can do evil, rather he chooses not to, and because of this God is represented as only allowed to do good. But how can anything that is as powerful as that not be able to do something horrible.

In The Summa Theologica St. Thomas Aquinas addresses some of these objections, the most telling of which can be restated as: (I) To sin is an action, however god is unable to sin. Therefore god cannot be omnipotent. (ii) The greatest act possible of god is his practice of "sparing and having mercy". There are actions judged to be much greater however, such as creating a world. Therefore god is not omnipotent.

For example, how I know that God exist, by how the universe operates by uniform laws of nature. With this argument there is no difference or number of objectives, many have accepted but many are vigorous - minded. If ontological argument was prosperous, that signifies God, “God” meaning “perfect being”, subsist. Now with monotheistic religion verbally expresses God to be true – for God to be impeccable than he is omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal. (“Ontological”) It shows that there is existence of God that is impeccable in every way, but it does not demonstrate much about the relationship of God and us.

Nonetheless, the inquiry still stays concerning if God was fit to make the universe without the likelihood of pain and agony. God could have made free creatures that chose not to cause suffering upon themselves or... ... middle of paper ... ...ent and omnipotent in spite of the vicinity of evil for two explanations. Firstly, God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent on the grounds that God is endless and can't be restricted by good or evil. The second explanation, is that in spite of the vicinity of evil on the planet, is that evil is made in place for a more excellent exceptional which man can yearn for. Overall, I suppose it is conceivable that God is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent, which might be said by people themselves as an immediate result of freedom.