In my life on this planet I have come to question many things that many take on as blind faith. We all know that someday we will 'physically' die, Yet, we continuously deny the forces working inside ourselves which want to search out the true outcome of what may or may not come after death. It's far easier for humanity to accept that they will go on to a safe haven and be forgiven for all, rather than to question the existence of a super omnipotent being. Fortunately, there are some of us who tend to question the why's and how's that come before us. We question the creation of humanity and the religious teachings received from our parents, our church and our society.
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.
McCloskey’s article labels these arguments as “proofs” and concludes none of these arguments would be evidence of God’s existence. I find McCloskey’s article to lack logic and coherence which only serves to invalidate his arguments. I find this little more than an attempt to justify his own atheistic worldview. Coherence is an essential part of the theist’s belief structure. The individual arguments when joined collectively hold just that, coherence.
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. Before I begin to prove my thesis I would like to give a little background about skepticism and external world (material world). In this paper, skepticism argues that there is no way that we could know anything and that we live in a place where “knowing” is not possible. Additionally, the material world refers to something that can be perceived, in addition, being the world that we currently interact with. You might ask yourself, “What are the things that are in this certain world?” Well, basically everything that is not the mind is considered to be part of this world.
Descartes was incorrect and made mistakes in his philosophical analysis concerning understanding the Soul and the foundation of knowledge. Yes, he coined the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am,” but the rest of his philosophical conclusions fail to be as solid (Meditation 4; 32). Descartes knew that if he has a mind and is thinking thoughts then he must be something that has the ability to think. While he did prove that he is a thinking thing that thinks (Meditation 3; 28), he was unable to formulate correct and true philosophical arguments and claims. For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument.
Doubt exists in the believer and the non-believer because it is beyond our reason to determine the truth of God's existence. St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Anselm would not agree that God is the unknown. They would however agree that reason couldn't comprehend God. Both would argue that we can say some things with certainty about God, using reason. On that knowledge, they can form their arguments for God's existence.
Since we cannot comprehend God in our thought, he no longer exists in our minds as an entity, but merely as a definition. Thus, since he no longer exists in our minds, there is no obligation to understand that he must exist in reality; an implication made in Anselm’s argument. Anselm’s Ontological argument is insufficient in proving that God exists. For the reasons above and further objections from various philosophers, I do not believe that Anselm can argue the existence of God with his current premises as they stand. I must say that despite my objections to Anselm’s Ontological argument, I respect his work done, and the tremendous thought process that must have occurred to conjure up such a case as was presented.
Both try to challenge peoples views and try to find ... ... middle of paper ... ...clusion is that maximal existence is possible, and therefore God’s existence is possible, and not actual. After reviewing the comments of the four philosophers about there views of the Ontological argument and the existence of God, it seems that that the argument is generally unsuccessful. One reason why this could be is because the definitions are extremely limited and restricted. They don’t look into the situation into enough detail to make the comments seem extremely believable. Also, the task of actually defining God is especially difficult, due to the fact that we are only limited to human terms to describe God, which proves to be inadequate.
Drawing from the arguments, it is clear that god’s existence is not in line with humanity, logic, or science. This is because logic tends to disregard the arguments that are stipulated in religion. Similarly, science disapproves religious arguments on the existence of god.
Kant argues that humans can never have knowledge of something in metaphysics, because it is not something he or anyone can prove in space, time or causation. He instead considers that God is a possibility but not a necessity for certainty, for he cannot be certain of God’s existence. I completely agree with Kant on these two points, for they would be seemingly impossible to prove wrong. However, if more research was done into all three researchers I would be able to more thoroughly explain their positions on God, and exactly how they justify or dismiss the idea that God is important to reality. Especially on Locke my interview with Rich Dettmer was not clear enough to understand exactly how he proves God’s existence.