In the history of concepts, there is no concern that Al-Ghazali’s figure emerges as one of the best Western thinkers. Considered as the prominent Sunni theologian that ever lived, Al-Ghazali’s polemic againstNeoplatonic thinkers, mainly Ibn Sina, dealt a fatal rage to philosophy within Islamic world. Written following his period of private study of philosophy, and completed in 1094 CE, Tahafut al-Falasifa carried the purpose of pursuing the analysis of reason that inspired his stint of cynicism, and was attempting to illustrate that reason is not self-reliant in the sphere of metaphysics and is incapable out of itself to construct an absolute world-view. Whereas, as Goldziher (1981) explains, Al-Ghazali uniquely held certain beliefs which he refuted in Tahafut, he wanted to demonstrate that reason on its own cannot establish that the world has the creator, two gods are unfeasible, God is not an entity or a body, and that he understand both himself and others, that the spirit is a self-resilient body. This paper will analyze Al-Ghazali’s argument on the eternity of the world, as found in his first areas of debate with philosophers and evaluated against Ibn Rushd’s answers. Al-Ghazali started his first argument by stating that historically, there are three philosophical perceptions on the past eternity of the world. The most generally held point is that of maintaining (the world’s) earlier eternity: that it has never stopped to be present with God, glorified be He, being a consequence of His, to prevail along with Him, and not being subsequent to Him over time (Jackson, 2002). Another position that is related to Plato, proposed that the world was created and begun in time. Out of these, Al-Ghazali turned his polemic toward the mos... ... middle of paper ... ...premise is indubitable. Thus, it became significant to show the truth of the premise that the world is finite and started to exist. So as to do this, Al-Ghazali utilized two important lines of attack: the first by demonstrating that the theorists had failed to show the impracticality of creation of the worldly body from an eternal being; the second that the start of the world is demonstrable. Al-Ghazali started his verification of argument one by summarizing the claim between philosophers and theologians, and began with his over arching assertion: that it is hard for temporal to ensue from an eternal. He recorded the argument of the philosophers, which without recognizing that the universe emerged from God co-eternally, the universe would linger in the sphere of real possibility, because continuation would have had that which offers [it] predominance (Dutton, 2001).
The intricacy of a simple time telling device has sparked controversy about the creation of the universe. In William Paley’s “The Analogical Teleological Argument” he argues that the universe must have been created by a universe maker, God, due to its complexity. However, David Hume, provides an empiricist objection by arguing that one cannot prove the existence of a universe maker due to lack of experience regarding the creation of a universe. Ultimately, I will argue that Paley’s argument by design is not sufficient for proving God 's existence because, as individuals, we cannot assume that the world works the way we wish it.
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
The Ontological argument was presented in his work “Proslogion” in two parts. It should be noted that this entire argument was formed from reason which is the process of forming conclusions and judgements through logic. As a result, a prior (first hand) knowledge is used. The first part is focused on proving God’s existence.
Throughout history there has always been discussions and theories as to how the universe came to be. Where did it come from? How did it happen? Was it through God that the universe was made? These philosophies have been discussed and rejected and new theories have been created. I will discuss three theories from our studies, Kalam’s Cosmological Argument, Aquinas’s Design Argument, and Paley’s Design Argument. In this article, I will discuss the arguments and what these arguments state as their belief. A common belief from these three theories is that the universe is not infinite, meaning that the universe was created and has a beginning date. Each believe that there was a God, deity, or master creator that created the universe for a reason. They also believe that
Many readers follow Descartes with fascination and pleasure as he descends into the pit of skepticism in the first two Meditations, defeats the skeptics by finding the a version of the cogito, his nature, and that of bodies, only to find them selves baffled and repulsed when they come to his proof for the existence of God in Meditation III. In large measure this change of attitude results from a number of factors. One is that the proof is complicated in ways which the earlier discourse is not. Second is that the complications include the use of scholastic machinery for which the reader is generally quite unprepared -- including such doctrines as a Cartesian version of the Great Chain of Being, the Heirloom theory of causaltiy, and confusi ng terms such as "eminent," "objective" and "formal reality" used in technical ways which require explanation. Third, we live in an age which is largely skeptical of the whole enterprise of giving proofs for the existence of God. A puzzled student once remaked, "If it were possible to prove that God exists, what would one need faith for?" So, even those inclined to grant the truth of the conclusion of Descartes' proof are often skeptical about the process of reaching it.
St. Thomas Aquinas presents five arguments to demonstrate the existence of God. However, this paper focuses on the fifth argument. The fifth argument is regarded as the Teleological Argument and states that things that lack intelligence act for some end or purpose. While the fifth argument satisfies God’s existence for Aquinas, some contemporary readers would argue that Aquinas neglects the laws of physics. Others argue that Aquinas allows a loophole in his argument so that the Catholic conception of God is not the only intelligent designer.
To begin, proof of God’s existence is seen in the group of cosmological arguments. The cosmological arguments are a set of arguments that demonstrate the existence of a sufficient reason or first cause of the existence of the cosmos, or the universe as a whole. There are three different types of cosmological arguments, the Kalam, Thomist and and Leibnizian cosmological arguments. Proponents of the cosmological argument include Plato, Aristotle, and John Locke. Contemporary defenders include William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne.
He concludes he did not create the idea of God. A finite being is incapable of creating an idea of an infinite possibility. Therefore, God must have created the idea already in him when he was created. Concluding that God exists. He also touches upon the idea in which he resolves that it cannot be a deceiver.
Although their methods and reasoning contrasted one another, both philosophers methodically argued to come to a solid, irrefutable proof of God, which was a subject of great uncertainty and skepticism. Through Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous and Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes and Berkeley paved the way towards an age of confidence and faith in the truth of God’s perfect existence actively influencing the lives of
...nd reason. Ibn Rushd first used this logic in order to determine the existence of God. According to Chad Hillier, “The simple fact is that reason affirms divine unity, which, by definition, is a confession of God’s existence and the denial of any other deity.” (Chad Hillier) Based on this quote, one can infer that reason plays large role in one’s faith; Ibn Rushd made this clear by proving God’s existence via rational thought and scientific explanation. He then used it to establish certain attributes and characteristics of God and also focused on the origin of the world. Later in his life, the events that Ibn Rushd was essentially involved in all led to a dramatic shift in the world of religion and theology. He had an overall positive impact on many world religions and showed how religions could eventually evolve and transform into what they are known to be today.
Through out history there have been questions of where we come from and how we got here. It all comes down to the question of God’s existence. God’s existence has never been questioned during the times of when Christianity, Judaism and Islam were born. The question of God’s existence comes from our new way of thinking after these religions. Science has made us think of how things work in our world and brings Gods existence into question. There were no scientific studies done during the days of Jesus to prove that God exists, so where did the people in history get this idea of God from? Many philosophers have been questioning and giving their ideas of God and his existence. The ideas that we may have of God is usually connected with religion and our beliefs. One philosopher that touches on this topic is Descartes. Descartes gives his ideas on God’s existence and his out look on our selves compared to God. Most religions believe that there is a God and that he has created everything around us. Everyone has a different answer to this question that they think is the right one. Throughout this paper, I will be discussing God’s existence, while looking at Descartes ideas and through different perspectives of whether or not God exist as well.
Averroës, and Simon Van Den Bergh. Averroes' Tahafut Al-tahafut: (The Incoherence of the Incoherence). London: Trustees of the "E.J.W. Gibb Memorial", 1978. Print.
1-Fakhry, Majid. Al-Farabi, founder of Islamic Neoplatonism : his life, works and influence, Oxford: Oneworld,c 2002. Print.
Descartes intuits this self-evident proposition and at the same time simultaneously infers his own existence. By an act of simple mental vision, he clearly and distinctly perceived that he exists from a clearly and distinct premise about what he thought. The Cogito for him meets the criterion of truth that he previously formed. This proposition cannot be undermined because it is a privileged truth and is not subjected to the ‘evil genius’. Such a truth is also indubitable. It should be stated out here that he was thinking not so much in the order of existence but r...
People all over the world have different religions that believe in there is an almighty being. This means that they believe and worship the almighty being. However, there are people who have questioned whether such a being exists. The question has raised several arguments from different philosophers. Each of them came up with their different views about the controversy surrounding the question. God’s ‘existence’ is one of the widely discussed topics over the years. The question came to place due to some occurrences in society. Similarly, different scientific innovations have contributed to the continued debate on the question. God is believed to be ‘all-powerful’ because there is nothing that he cannot do. This means that he is able to perform anything that is beyond human capability. Such beliefs have raised several questions because they are not in line with science or logic in different ways. God’s existence contradicts with humanity, logic, and science.