Descartes believes God exists because he is perfect and if he were not perfect then he would not exist. In short, Descartes thought that doubt will move the inquirer toward the elimination of error and, accordingly, certainty will be given to knowledge. Charles Peirce believed “only through the way of linguistic, logical and pragmatic signs considered as tools and objects can humans know about the natural world.” (Kremer... ... middle of paper ... ...n for his thinking. Peirce wants his thoughts to make sense on their own, without having to be applicable in all cases. Peirce is concerned with what is practical, not the theoretical, because what is theoretical is not real to Peirce.” (Design) In conclusion, neither view on knowledge is improbable.
Throughout this proof, Descartes is trying to use God’s existence as a way of affirming that which he clearly and distinctly perceives. However, he is also trying to prove God’s existence by claiming that the idea of God is a clear and distinct perception. Without inquiring into the existence of God, “it appears I am never capable of being completely ... ... middle of paper ... ...hat God too exists" (Descartes, 34). Descartes proof of the existence of God is derived from his establishment that something cannot come from nothing. Because God is a perfect being, the idea of God can be found from exploring the different notions of ideas.
Thus, Anselm tends to base his argument on the definitions and terminology used. Anselm’s first form of the argument is that God is "that than which none greater can be conceived". Firstly, it must be emphasised that Anselm’s definition does not limit God to being the "greatest" but makes it known that nothing greater can be thought than God himself. Therefore, God should not in any way be linked to terms such as ‘omnipotent’ as terminology such as this limit him to what he really is. With this definition, he attempts to prove that not only does God exist in the mind but also in reality.
He also cannot be blamed for giving us an infinite will, as the will is nothing but a simple infinite entity. How can we perceive something distinctly and clearly? According to Descartes it was possible for God to create him with an insurmountable inclination to assent only to those things, which were distinctly and clearly perceived by him, but God is infinite and His ways are inscrutable. Descartes writes in his Meditation IV that when he tries to find out about God, he feels that in reality a positive idea of God is already present in his mind and it is a supremely perfect being. But at the same time he encounters with a negative idea which gives him a since of nothingness.
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.
He proposed his argument for God’s existence. His ontological argument is based on the thought of God as the highest being. Anselm’s argument is different from other philosophers simply because of it’s premise. He saw a need for a precise logical philosophy as a way for making faith mature, not as a substitute for faith. Because Anselm already believed in God, he was only looking for rational support for this belief.
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.
Another issue that Pascal takes time to address is the difference between the choices of does God exist and believing in God. The argument for if God exists allows for three choices. The fi... ... middle of paper ... ...s or prove that you truly have faith in God and not just using God as a “means-end”. This adds the problem of what would prove to be enough to truly prove to God that you are not using him as a “means-end”, since part of the definition of God is that he is knows all and thus would not be fooled by such shallow belief. Thus it becomes more that just a simple coin toss.
Having faith is believing in things that you don’t see. According to the Meditations, Descartes gets rid of beliefs that he isn’t certain of and keeps the ones that are undoubtable. He tries to prove that God has must exist since we have such a clear and distinct idea of him. I believe it is impossible to prove without a doubt that God exists. Descartes goes on to prove the existence of God in two different ways.
In turn, by proving the existence of God, Descartes disproves the existence of the evil deceiver and solidifies Descartes understandings of truth. After discussing the necessity of assuring God’s existence, Descartes follows his piece with the actual argument proving the existence of God. Desecrates provides several lines of reasoning for proving God, but one of the most compelling ones revolves around the idea of formal realities versus their existence as ideas and the associated hierarchy of the finite and and the