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.
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.
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.
How can anyone rationally conclude that there is a God from the simple statement that a first cause is necessary for the existence of anything? A first cause does not prove God, it only assumes that there is a God, at best. Could one not put matter in the place of God in St. Aquinas’s argument and still assume there is a first efficient cause? The theory that matter “is”, is just as plausible as the theory that God “is”. Matter is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning nor end.
If we examine independently the arguments presented by McCloskey they too lack adequacy to establish the nonexistence of God. McCloskey begins by addressing the cosmological argument. He proposes that the existence of the world itself does not give reason to believe in a necessarily existing being. McCloskey believes there is a lack of evidence to show the world had a cause and that God was that cause. However, Evans and Manis suggest there are beings in this world that are unaware of how they came to exist.
As Kant puts it, existence is not predicate, an asset or a substance that can be said to possess or lack certain traits. When individuals point out that God is existent, they are not in the real sense saying that there is an existent God and that he contains the traits of existence (Purtill 297). Personally, I think that the objection presented by Kant nullifies the ontological argument on the existence of God. Ideally, there has never been any plausible objection to Kant’s opinion that existence is not a property of objects. For this reason, it is impossible to make a comparison of a God that is existent to another that does not exist in any form as Descartes wants us to believe.
For Descartes there can exist only one such being and that is God, and this is what he stands to prove. Descartes points out that in order for any effect to occur, its cause must own the effect itself, and this he calls “causality” (Tutorial for PLS3702, 2014:17) In order to prove the existence of God, Descartes employs two arguments, the cosmological and ontological. The cosmological argument makes inference from certain alleged facts about the world, (cosmos) about the existence of a unique and perfect being, God (Reichenbach, 2014:1). Descartes is aware of such a unique and perfect being, and this awar... ... middle of paper ... ...nal faith. 5.
Spinoza’s best argument against the traditional view in this scholium is that “All things depend on God’s power. 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 argument is a direct result of God’s essence. Spinoza believes in a profound dependence upon God.
The metaphysical argument that is made by Spinoza has several interesting and different approaches then many other philosophers of his time. One of the main interesting arguments he raises is in his view of his monist metaphysics of God/Nature. In a brief overview this argument is to state that there is only one substance with infinite attributes, finite modes, and is God/Nature. Spinoza's substance monism argument takes place in his writings of "Ethics I". In this argument Spinoza's views God and Nature as one and does not use previous arguments for the existence of God/Nature.
Dogmatism is described as a "certainty that everything is demonstrable" (Pascal, p.93). This is an unacceptable belief, however, because it reduces the infinitude of the universe to a finite explanation. Lastly, blind faith is described as "submitting in all things, for lack of knowing where one must use his own judgement" (Pascal, p.93). In other words, blind faith means believing what others tell you without considering what you feel is right. In fact, there is no explanation someone could give of God or truth because these are both infinite terms, and when infinite terms are expressed in the finite, they become nothingness (Pascal, p.86).