Descartes blames us and says that it is our errors and God has not given us defective faculties. It is the misuse of our freedom of will to assent to things, which we don’t perceive clearly or distinctly. In fact the lack or imperfection lies in the operation of the will and it is not due to the faculties, which we have received from God. Descartes proved the existence of God by saying that since existence is inseparable from God, he really exists and God can never deceive. Works Cited Descartes, Rene.
The ideal is always “more perfect” than the real. For this reason, a God that only existed in the intellect would be the best conceivable God because it would avoid the “inherent imperfection” that comes with reality. In this manner, existence is not a perfection. In short, the Cartesian Ontological Argument attempts to prove the existence of God without any claims based on the external material world. Even though, intuitively there seems to be something immediately wrong with the argument, it is difficult to identify the actual mistakes in the argument.
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.
Though these arguments Aquinas states his belief that God is the greatest of all things. While this is the same notion that Anselm has, Anselm does not hat the wit to back it up logically. In fact, the deeper you dig into Anselm, the more confusing and illogical it gets. Aquinas makes a great logical argument that is not terrible confusing. So, while they both had the same idea of God, only Aquinas was able to back it up.
Human beliefs are contingent true, because it could happen to be true and it could also have been false. Divine beliefs are necessary truth, by denying it, it will create a contradiction. Therefore, as logic dictates, my first proposition is if one believes in God, then no human action will be voluntary. However, noted that God is all-knowing, but it doesn’t mean God is all-controlling. For the sake of argument in a metaphysical sense, what if there were more than just one rea... ... middle of paper ... ...onditions: Since God is all-knowing, the multiverse can exist within God’s omniscience.
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.
So in order for things to be able to be different, God’s will would necessarily also have to be different. But God’s will cannot be different … So things also cannot be different” (Ethics, 1p33s2). This position directly challenges the traditional view, which states that it is arbitrary whether or not God creates anything at all. According to Spinoza, things necessarily are the way they are and it is not possible for anything to be any different.
Through a priori knowledge and reason, they have drawn the conclusion that God exists. The fundamental part of the Ontological Argument is that, we are able to prove God’s existence because we are able to believe it so. The Ontological Argument does not look at designs in the physical universe, but at our mind’s logic that had led to the belief that God exists in reality. “God is that then which nothing greater can be conceived” – God is greater than anything that exists in both reality and thought.
Ontological arguments are a priori, which show that God exists without appealing to a sense experience. These ontological arguments argue about what God is to where he is from. St. Anselm, the creator of the ontological argument, based his theory on that we cannot think of anything greater than God. Therefor God must exist, why you might ask? If the greatest thing that we can conceive does not exist than we can still conceive the greatest thing that does exist, and that would be God.
The ontological argument aims to prove the existence of God as an a priori argument. One of the distinguishing features of Descartes's argument is its simplicity. The argument is deductive and based on reason alone and requires no need for physical evidence of God, it attempts to prove Gods existence objectively and necessarily. There are some statements we know to be false without any further information, such as “a circle has 3 sides” or “she is a bachelor” these statements are untrue by definition. The ontological argument aims to make the statement “God doesn't exist” as absurd and false as the statements above, and for “God exists” to be an analytic truth, thus it is logically impossible for it not to be the case.