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.
Believing that god is the one who makes us have ideas, without concrete proof would be reckless. This is why I believe that if god`s existence cannot be proven there shouldn’t be any arguments stating that this spirit is the one who controls everything. Lastly, since it`s impossible to prove god`s existence, Berkeley`s response fails to skepticism even if he`s completely right when he says that everything is an idea.
Infinity makes it impossible to have a first efficient cause, but if there is no first cause, there would be no intermediate cause (universe), and we (nature) would not exist. In the ontological argument, St Anselm provides an argument that is based on logic. In order to understand his argument you must first ... ... middle of paper ... ... should be like (beliefs) in order to fill the Gap of the unknown with ideas about God. Having Faith would make reason understand God. Doubt exists in the believer and the non-believer because it is beyond our reason to determine the truth of God's existence.
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.
However, Evans and Manis suggest there are beings in this world that are unaware of how they came to exist. These beings are often contingent on another being. Th... ... middle of paper ... ...were made to always do what is right then free will would truly not exist. It is evident that McCloskey’s arguments in an attempt to disprove the existence of God lacks evidence. He disputes the existence of God based on a lack of undisputable evidence, but he provides no undisputable evidence to counter this existence.
This premise is trying to compare god the being who can complete any task, to a normal person. This conflicts directly with Aquinas definition of omnipotence because it is logically possible for a person, so why isn’t it for god. I still think that his definition is correct because it is not logical to compare a person to an Omnipotence being. I think another argument could be made here that god would be doing more than carving a stone out of the earth but perhaps creating one. The paradox of the stone is an odd thing, if god wanted to keep his omnipotence he could just not create the stone therefore not be challenged.
Humans can never know for the certain why the universe was created or what caused it but, we can still create arguments and theories to best explain what might have created the universe. The cosmological argument is another idea to prove the existence of god. Many philosophers debate wheatear the cosmological argument is valid. The cosmological argument starts off quite simply: whatever exists must come from something else. Nothing is the source of its own existences, nothing is self-creating .
The best explanation to the existence of God through St. Aquinas’s argument is that God does not exist as the first efficient cause. The argument for God, as presented by St. Aquinas, attempts to show that the existence of the world and everything within it can only be explained if there is a God who is the first efficient cause. The argument states that it is impossible for any being to be the efficient cause of itself because then it would have to bring itself into being, and to bring itself into being, it would have to exist before it existed. If a being exists, it is because some being before it caused it to exist. Therefore, if no first cause exists, neither will any other being exist.
It argued that the world around us can be used as evidence to prove the existence of God - through the natural order that occurs in our lives, bodies and minds. He used the analogy of a watch to emphasis the complexity of our world. To me, this doesn’t prove the Christian God because the jump from a watch to a human is too great. Also the way the universe functions is organic, but a watch is mechanistic. One could say that even if this argument does conclude that the universe had a creator, this does not necessarily mean that it still exists.
With this definition, he attempts to prove that not only does God exist in the mind but also in reality. Anselm uses the example of "the fool" to prove his point on God’s existence. He says that when "the fool" says that "There is no God" in Psalms, he must therefore understand what he hears , and what he understands in his intellect by the term "God". Therefore, if he knows what God is, God must exist as it is impossible to know what something is if it does not exist. In chapter three in the ‘Proslogion’, Anselm contributes his second form to the argument.