However since we already have an idea of God as this perfect and infinite being, he must exist. Furthermore, since the natural light clears deception as an imperfection as well as not existing, God is a non-deceiver, he exist and is perfect. After the cogito argument and natural light examination of the deceptive God, Descartes discards the hypothesis that God is a deceiver. Since God is all-good, he would not deceive us. For that reason, Descartes introduces the evil demon/genius instead.
It would be impactless to Hume, who capitalizes on the wide range of nature’s uniformity, opposing it to the characteristic rarity of claimed miracles. Although Hume believes that a very strong testimony is required to incite an accent to a reported ordinary marvelous occurrence, he never accepted there could be evidence strong enough to back up an acceptance of any narrated prodigy: For there must be a “uniform experience” against every miraculous event. This “Uniform experience” these “laws” nature established by a firm and unalterable experience constitutes the proof against miracles. xxviii This is Hume serious inclination to the method of empirical science and in this constitutes the background to his biggest failure as far as our topic miracle is concerned. It is astonishingly unbelievable that Hume who spent that much energy arguing frantically against causality can refer to the law of nature as “firm” and “unalterable.” His famous example of our uncertainty as to whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow is the greatest witness to his inconsistency and paradoxicality.
According to his text, God is simply an illusion that does not exist. It is a human desire to, when overwhelmed by the complexity of the world, to worship something. “Science emancipates us from that desire”, Dawkins
That is, it seeks to prove its conclusion by work the globe. additionally to a posteriori arguments there's additionally another reasonably argument, AN a priori argument. AN a priori argument seeks to prove its conclusion simply by analyzing ideas victimization the school of reason. as a result of Hume is AN philosopher he doesn't believe that we are able to ever prove any matters of reality employing a priori arguments. However, he withal devotes a chapter of his book to assaultive the foremost renowned a priori argument for the existence of God: the metaphysics argument.
The main strength of Anselm 's argument is the way he explained the concepts of god and mentioned that it is not illogical, though explaining that everyone, even the fool and the non-believer must have understanding and a concept of God in their mind, and because they can understand that there’s a God in mind, therefore they should have a concept of God existing in reality. The one weakness of Anslem argument is that he didn 't give enough evidences for God existence in reality. Another weakness posed by St Aquinas, as Anselm states God is "that which nothing greater can be conceived" then to understand God in this way is to be equal to him, which Anselm is human and cannot be equal to God. The one strength of Aquinas argument: Aquinas was influential philosopher concerning the different people who have different concepts of God, and how they could understand and accept his argument. Aquinas also presented five ways as evidences to argue the existence of God.
Eastern Concepts: In the East there is often no explanation as to why evil should exist. Gautama Buddha observed that all of life is suffering, that suffering is caused by desire, and that suffering can be eliminated if desire is annihilated. Concentrating on the human situation, he ignored all matters pertaining to creation and whether there are gods. The Buddha declared that there is no such thing as permanent ego-identity and that the ultimate goal is the achievement if nirvana. In Vedanta Hinduism, Brahma, the ultimate, is beyond good and evil.
McCloskey argued against the three theistic proofs, cosmological argument, theological argument, and the argument from design. The Cumulative case that he presents takes the Cosmological, Theological, and Moral Arguments and puts them together. The Cosmological case makes a claim for the existence for God, the Theological case is the intelligent case, and the Moral case is morally perfect. All together,
That means 2 God is greater than 1 God and 3 God is greater than 2 God and so on. So it can be simply disproved. Also imagine a God of God which is greatest thing that God can be imagine then that becomes the supreme thing than God and this scenario will be continue this is happening because of fault in the logic used in this statement. Great has no meaning without when it stands in front of something it is always a tool of comparison so a greatest thing can’t be imagined because great has no limit. Meanwhile the argument “God exist as an idea in mind” can also be criticised may be existence of God is a false information that travelling from
When such concepts are undoubtable, where it is impossible to think of a 4-sided triangle or 2+2=5, it lacks limitations in its function, meaning that it can be considered perfect in its own way. Descartes thus derives the notion of perfection from the concepts and concludes God’s existence using two important ideas. The first is that “something can’t arise from nothing” (Bennet 2004, 12) while the latter is perfection precedes imperfection. The first phrase can be phrased as “something must come from something” (Bennet 2004, 12) where it highlights Descartes’s idea that everything, even if they are illusions or imagination, must have a cause. To Descartes, many things in reality are false to perceptions and they exist as imperfections.
In realising he is a ‘thing that thinks’, he is discovering an ontological truth – his model of knowledge fails when applied to others. He cannot proof someone else’s existence because he thinks, and whether or not they think is irrelevant because he cannot project thought from their perspective. Truth is only known to Descartes because he concluded it in his own conscious mind and this subjective reality does not lead to objective reality beyond his own mind. His claim for self-realization proves little to some other self-conscious being. To say “I think, therefore, I am’, cannot be proven my anyone other than him.