Descartes Cosmological Proof Of God Analysis

“It is possible to think a being “than which nothing greater can be conceived” -i.e. it is the most Perfect. So, if you are actually thinking of “that than which nothing greater can be conceived,” this logically entails thinking of that thing as existing in reality as well as in the mind. This being is what we call “God”” (Leib slide 2).

As a counter argument it is faulty, and ultimately fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the traditional God exists and has an adequate reason for evil. In a court of law, the burden of proof falls onto the prosecution to prove their claim beyond a reasonable doubt while the defense counters their position by establishing some doubt. The prosecution can be seen as Craig as he claims the existence of a God, whereas Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheism only exists in relation to theism. Atheism is a response to theism but theism is an idea in itself, independent of atheism. In other words, without theism atheism would not exist, as such without a claim made by the Crown the defense is not needed.

The fact is that God transcends our mental capacities and he controls our comprehension in all spheres of life (Noone, 2009). In line with Foreman's Presentation, concerning "Approaching the Question of God's Existence," one can argue that the ideas of McCloskey in interpreting cosmological and teleological arguments are based on a wrong hypothesis. On the Cosmological Argument, the existence of God has been a reality, whether the creator was a being or a thing. The existence of the universe is not enough to validate the existence of God.

Lewis explains that finding faith in God is done by first accepting that it might be true. I agree with this because I personally did not find faith in God again until I personally believed that there is a chance that such a being could exist. Lewis bases his worldview on simply accepting the fact that all situations in life are possible-even the possibility of a higher being. However, Freud’s counter argument seems flawed to me because he bases all his beliefs on what he can physically research and be given a definite answer to. Years ago when, I was an atheist, I would have agreed with Freud, but having the faith I have now I do not.

He discusses the possibility of this occurring through natural theology, or contemplation, but decides that this is not possible due to the “ignorance and stupidity of the people” (sec. 6, pg. 29, para 1). He continues on to refute other possible explanations, before concluding that it occurs as a natural result of the flattery system; humans place one God above all others and say that he is omnipresent and infinite (sec. 6, pg. 31, para 1). They worship that one perfect God with the hope that they will attain the maximum control over their own anxieties and suffering. The purpose of these sections is to lead readers to doubt the foundations in reason of their belief

Through science, it is clear that we have been born with many things that are not essential for our survival. For example, male nipples, our appendix and hair serve no specific purpose to us. Therefore, if god is perfect by definitions, why is the world full of imperfect design? If god was so amazing, he would not have made these superfluous, unnecessary things that we do not need; however he would also not have made these by mistake. Overall, this criticism is proving that a perfect being (God) would not make mistakes so he either is imperfect or does not exist at

Saint Anselm: Saint Anselm was a brilliant philosopher who brought thought-provoking ideas to the world. His mission was to provide evidence that proved the existence of God. The way in which he found the ability to prove the existence of God was through conjuring possible reasons for existence but then finding contradictions within those reasons that only lead back to the solution that there is only one higher power. 1.One of Anselm’s ideas was called Monologian. This was based on the idea that all good things come from something of ultimate goodness.

With God at the basis of this ethical theory it is more often, than not, that people who are religious believe in this theory more than those who are not. This is because people who do not believe in God or the

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.

As Pecorino (2000) defined it, “existentialism is a philosophical movement or tendency, emphasizing individual existence, freedom, and choice that influenced many diverse writers in the 19th and 20th centuries”. From the definition, it can be said that it is a view that all humans should determine their own meaning in life, and therefore try to make rational decisions in spite of existing in an irrational universe. The central point of the idea is the question of human existence, and the feeling that there is no purpose or explanation at the innermost of existence. It further holds that there is no God or any other superior force, and that the only means to opposed this nonexistence is by willingly accepting existence. The following paragraphs

So examining further the foundations elemental secular government becomes not just a matter of gently logical opinion but one of extreme political and practical desperation (Harris). "Theistic Evolutionists" believe that God conducted evolution over millions of years but only seven percent out of the thirty-nine percent thought themselves as "Darwinists", who believe that God played no role in either creation or evolution. These two groups further prove that contradicting ideas and theories can live amongst one another in peace (“American Decades”). In conclusion, secular and sacred groups have proved to have conflicts in the past and present but they also have proven that they can coexist