Berkeley`s states that everything is an idea and that there has to be a supreme spirit (god) out there that has the ability to put ideas in our mind. Thus, being the one who controls everything that we are able think. The way that I understood Berkeley`s argument is that he believes that the existence of “God” is essential in order to know anything from the external world. Comprehending Berkeley`s argument wasn’t an easy task, but I have come to my personal conclusion that this so called; “Supreme spirit” is not necessary for me to have knowledge about the things that I can observe. Therefore in this paper, I will argue that Berkeley`s response to skepticism is not successful because he thinks that god is the base of knowledge.
Nonetheless, the inquiry still stays concerning if God was fit to make the universe without the likelihood of pain and agony. God could have made free creatures that chose not to cause suffering upon themselves or... ... middle of paper ... ...ent and omnipotent in spite of the vicinity of evil for two explanations. Firstly, God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent on the grounds that God is endless and can't be restricted by good or evil. The second explanation, is that in spite of the vicinity of evil on the planet, is that evil is made in place for a more excellent exceptional which man can yearn for. Overall, I suppose it is conceivable that God is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent, which might be said by people themselves as an immediate result of freedom.
The first rule of philosophical discourse is clarity and since God is the main topic, there is no way in which we should avoid discussing the ontological argument. Actually, McCloskey’s failure to analyze the ontological argument is one of the reasons why he failed to understand the theists’ arguments. The diversity of religious beliefs scattered in the world is not aiding the theistic endeavor. It has further complicated the defenses used by theists all over the world. Fortunately, Evans clarified some misconceptions about the characteristics of God in his article.
Demea responds by stating that we are only a speck in the whole universe limited to only what we can see. What seems evil to us now may not be evil for we cannot see how everything will end. Once we look at everything as a whole, we must make the connections and understand that with God in charge, everything will work out for the best. We cannot say that God is evil when we are only looking at the world from our point of view for we cannot see the ultimate goal which God seems to have in mind. After analyzing what Demea states, one finds that he is unknowingly on the same page as Philo.
In other words, if one looks at the world this way, i.e., a place created and totally dominated by God who decides what is morally good, who ultimately decides the fate of every human being, it seems that humans are not significantly free after all, unless one considers freedom from God’s perspective. As a matter of fact, Augustine does not realize that if it is as he argues that God foreknows every event in the world, then God created determined creatures that have no knowledge of being determined. Augustine points out that, “…although God foreknows our future wills, it does not follow from this that we do not will something by our own will.” (188.8.131.52). Augustine’s argument here supports my criticism. Namely, what follows from this argument is that humans in reality are not free because every action that they will is necessary, thus already pre-determined by God.
In the final analysis, Descartes, the rationalist, tried to proof the existence of the material and external objects around him by pointing at the existences of God, the innate ideas, and God is not a deceiver so he will not try to deceive him by giving Descartes the wrong information about all the external objects around him. However, John Locke, the empiricist, believe that all ideas come through experience and he would be against Descartes argument about the innate ideas and the existence of God because there are several people around the world who do not have any innate idea about God until they study about him, and also he someone lack an organ he or she will not be able to have any idea about any object in front of them. Finally, Locke has is a more convincing argument about the existence of material object through experience than Descartes’ argument.
The only other solution is for God to not create the world at all. He argues that for any world God could create, which included freedom, there is at least one action on which Man would go wrong, or else he could not create any world at all. This phenomenon he calls transworld depravity. Therefore, for God to create a world in which humans had moral freedom, the existence of both Good and Evil is necessary.
Aquinas says that there must be a cause of this and it is God. The last way that Aquinas proves God comes from the governance of the world. Aquinas says that things in the world lack knowledge and yet they still work their way towards an end, but he says that it is impossible for something to lack knowledge and work its way to an end. Due to this fact Aquinas determines that there must be some intelli... ... middle of paper ... ...that logic to explain God to him he would laugh in his face. Although these arguments may prove their point in a construed way there are some who believe the Ontological Argument to be impossible, one of these being Kant.
Philosophers, whether they are atheists, or believers have always been eager to discuss the existence of God. Some philosophers, such as St Thomas Aquinas, and St Anselm, believe that we have proven that God exists through our senses, logic, and experience. Others such as Soren Kierkegaard, and Holbach, feel that we will never have the answer to this question due to our human limitations, and reason. The believer tends to rely on faith for his belief, and claim they do not need proof in order to believe in the God's existence. The atheist however, tends to lean more towards common sense and reason, such as science, or the theory of evolution for an answer.
Yet machines do not have the capability to feel happiness or sorrow to preserve them from propagation of life. Philo then questions how are people to believe in the understanding of attributes from a perfect God that is incomprehensible. Demea thinks that all man should understand the truth of religion and should not enter into a higher consciousness or reasoning of a Deity, this would be considered blasphemy. He constantly questions how one should vie... ... middle of paper ... ...ll be incoherent in an ambiguous understanding of truth versus false. Philo tries to establish the existence of God does not work or have any reason to say he exist or doesn't without proof.