Plato describes that knowledge is possible, but is instilled in our reason. He contradicts the view of epistemology and says that our senses and experiences do not provided enough reason to be considered knowledge. Lawhead deplics Plato as being, “a typical rationalist who thought that ultimate knowledge must be objective, unchanging and universal”.(194). When it comes to the second epistemological question, rationalist believe that reason alone is the only way to find true knowledge. Lawhead uses the example of mathematics and logic to describe that we come to conclusions by means of reason.(192).
First Descartes examined the various qualitative mathematical features regarding such objects, those that he found having existed within him already. Some of these properties were uniform when it comes to a certain object, initiating Descartes to think of them as things he must clearly acknowledge regardless of his conscious idea toward them. The existence of God was then used to prove the truth behind such objects; including even those of the senses for mathematical properties could be derived from them. Since Descartes could clearly and distinctively conceive God, which was indubitable, any clear and distinctive feature of material objects perceived would ensure their existence as well as anything else that were perceived in the same manner (Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, p.87-90). In other words, God’s existence acted as Descartes’ ultimate key that would help him achieve the perfect knowledge (Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy,
The case applies aptly. For Descartes, when a man utters “I think, therefore I am” he is willing to concede that the man does in fact exist for knowing exactly what he is saying. However, in the case of the computer and computer engineer, the cogito is not clear and distinct to either the computer or the computer engineer and yet the cogito is uttered in a valid, logical sense. Thus, while the cogito is a valid argument for existence, Descartes cannot escape the fact that he had made the assumption that one who states the cogito is one who thinks and thus exists. Which, in the case provided, have failed to proof the existence of the one who utters
“I think, Therefore I am” This quote by Descartes prove that the person exists by his ability of thinking.  Descartes prove the existing of human being through doubting and thinking and he explains his claim by stating that when the person doubt his existence or think about his existence then he exists.  Moreover, Descartes imposes an ontological argument to prove gods existence which states that: god is a perfect being and since it is more perfect to exist than not this implies that god exists.  He also introduce another more complex argument for god existence which differ between two types of reality. Formal reality is the reality that anything has in feature of existing and it comes with three types: finite, infinite, and mode.
Knowledge Argument against Physicalism Physicalism is a branch of philosophy which states that everything in this world is physical. There is nothing like non-physical. Physical facts are the truth in this world. Physicalism is also called ‘materialistic monism’. Monism is a singular existence theory like only one substance exists in the world.
Instead of using faith or going solely based on his beliefs, he tries to argue there has to be a God for the universe to exist. Thomas Aquinas’ arguments do prove that there needs to be an original being (or force) for the universe to come into existence; however, some of his arguments do falter to scrutiny. The first three arguments do hold water in the sense that is follows scientific reasoning, then draws to a conclusion that would resolve the argument. The first way describes the “Argument from Motion,” which basically follows Newton’s First Law of Motion. “An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force.
The fact that synthetic a priori knowledge is known by us suggests that important truths can be known by the pure reason. However, rationalist metaphysics was not followed by the author Immanuel Kant in asserting that pure reason has the influence to take hold of the mysteries of the world. Instead, the author suggests that whatever we perceives in mind shapes the reality. As per author the mind do not inactively receive information provided by the senses. Instead, it actively shapes and makes sense of that information.
Deductive reasoning theory Deductive reasoning theory is a process of thinking logically in which the result of the decision (or the conclusion) is based on the premises that are supposed to be true in general (Whatls.com, 2013). In other words, it is the truth in an idea of premises logically to insure the idea of conclusion, given that the conclusion has no doubt in the reasoning (William, 2006). The premise is a reasoning that is supposed to be true or commonly believed. For example: (i) The earth is a planet; (i) All planets orbit the sun; (ii) Therefore earth orbits the sun. This is because the premise of the earth is a planet and that all planets orbit the sun are the truth, for this reason the conclusion of the earth orbits the sun is necessarily true.
Thus, it doesn’t provide any issues for belief in the existence of God. What’s more, I have supplemented these findings, with reasons for supporting a theistic solution. These reasons can be summarised as 1) the Big Bang fits in best with a theistic worldview, 2) laws and constants, conspire in a mathematically incredible way which points to an Intelligent Designer, 3) the information inside every cell, in every living creature, points towards an Intelligent Designer and 4) human consciousness supports a theistic belief. Therefore, I have argued for belief in the existence of God based on the science of Intelligent Design!
Rationalism is beliefs in the external world that give somethings like a power or transcendent being. Empiricism is belief in sensation experience that looks like a science. I think both concepts are conflict in some situation and compatible in some situation. For example, you can’t test or examination about the God’s existence but you can’t say it is true or false or meaningless because may be verified in the future. The paradigm of Positivism seems to be combined of Rationalism and Empiricism.
Examples of such paradigm shifts are; Classical Newtonian physics to quantum-physics, Cyclic landscapes to Continental drift by Alfred Wegener, Creation to Darwinian evolution and geosentrism to heliosentism. iii) Bruno Latour Bruno Latours attribution to the development of science is that of the following meaning; constructionism is the view that understanding science must not be isolated nor should it be limited to a specific view. It should also not be shut off from other processes that produce knowledge. It must rather, in a pragmatic way, take cognicase of the context in which science is practiced. Thus socially plays a role in the development of science.
People believe what they want and most of the time ones mind cannot be changed. There are a couple of arguments that philosophers have come up with. When one is looking at different general types of arguments for God’s existence there are 2. One is a posteriori which is physical evidence and the second is a priori which is purely logical (Furman). The question is did we come from a being that is more powerful than us named God or are we existing through science evolution?