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.
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.
Moreover, God could have made other worlds; though, the extent to which he could make these worlds is limited. For example, God could not create a world in which evil prospers because He cares about goodness, benevolence etc., but the point remains that God could have created things differently; God could have created other worlds. Spinoza, however, strongly disagrees with this position. In 1p33s2 of the Ethics, Spinoza puts forth a couple of arguments that separate him from the tradition. Spinoza’s best argument against the traditional view in this scholium is that “All things depend on God’s power.
What I want to know is how we can conceive the existence of something that is beyond all that is conceivable. While there are obvious problems with his logic, Anselm firmly believes that God is the greatest of all beings. This is exactly what Aquinas believes, only his argument is much clearer. First, he asks "whether it can be demonstrated that God exists." This is an important question because if it cannot be demonstrated that God exists, then there is no point in trying to.
If minds did not exist to perceive things then how could anyone know anything? In conclusion, I have established that it’s possible to know things from the external world even if god is not the base of knowledge. One of Berkeley strongest argument was that knowledge and god go hand to hand. Through several arguments that I made I have proven that god is not essential for the course of knowledge. Believing that god is the one who makes us have ideas, without concrete proof would be reckless.
This does not mean that He is infinite. Some Christians have said that God is infinite, but this concept cannot be supported biblically. The only characteristic of God described as infinite is His knowledge or understanding. Therefore, the argument does not hold, since the God of Christianity is not described as infinite. It is for this reason the ontological argument can fail as a theistic proof however it is not an easy answer to the question as it holds both 'for' and 'against' reasoning for the theistic proof in the existence of God.
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.
Anselm’s argument deals with his definition of what God is while Descartes uses the idea that every idea has a cause. This is an important difference because Anselm is able to jump directly to his conclusion, and Descartes still has more work to do to prove his argument. Descartes is then faced with a predicament of establishing who or what created this idea of God. Lastly, another difference is that Descartes discusses finite and infinite substances. According to Descartes, infinite substances are more real than finite substances, and with this fact along with his causality assertion, he is then able to reach the conclusion that God exists.
Arguments against St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God St. Anselm begins with a definition of God, argues that an existent God is superior to a non-existent God and concludes that God must exist in reality, for his non-existence would contradict the definition of God itself. The argument does not seem plausible to an unbiased person, even at the very first reading. It seems as if not all aspects of the question under scrutiny have been considered. The basic assumption, on which the entire argument stands, that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined can seem doubtful to a person who doubts the existence of God, for if one doubts that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived, then he may also be sceptical if any person has thoughts about the same being, whose existence itself is doubtful. The argument seems to “beg the question”.
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.