In Dialogues concerning Natural religion Hume explores whether or not faith is rational. as a result of Hume is AN philosopher (i.e. somebody WHO thinks that every one information comes through experience), he thinks that a belief is rational given that it's sufficiently supported by experiential proof. therefore the question is absolutely, is there enough proof within the world to permit North American country to infer AN infinitely sensible, wise, powerful, excellent God? Hume doesn't raise whether or not we are able to rationally prove that God exists, however rather whether or not we are able to rationally return to any conclusions regarding God's nature. He asserts that the primary question is on the far side doubt; the latter is ab initio undecided.
Hume (textbook, p. 305) develops, in detail, what is presumably the most grounded contention against the presence of God in a valid deductive argument. He states, “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” In a similar vein: If God exists, he is all-knowing, omnipotent, and ethically flawless. If God were all-knowing, God would know about all the terrible occasions that occur in our reality. If God were omnipotent, God would have the capacity to do something. Furthermore, if God were ethically flawless, then unquestionably God would want to do something about all the evil and suffering. But, yet there are still countless instances of evil that fills our world. Concluding, since God does not prevent or eliminate all unnecessary suffering, logically, God does not exist. Hume concludes that if you want to make sense of all the evil randomness of the universe with the sense of God’s attributes, “You must prove these pure, unmixed, and uncontrollable attributes from the present mixed and confused phenomena, and from these alone. A hopeful undertaking!”
The Cartesian Circle is an objection to Descartes’ proof of God’s existence as it begs the question. In his proof, Descartes starts off with his two premises, his idea of God and the principle, which states that the cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality, which leads to a conclusion that God exists. Descartes’ conclusion then adds on to say that God is not a deceiver that will then follow to develop the General Rule, which states that if we have a clear and distinct perception of something, we would be certain of it. According to critics, Descartes is able to use the principle as his premise because Descartes relies on the General Rule in order to be certain of it.
As Descartes mentions in Meditation I, we assume God is an powerful demon but how can we prove that God exists? In Meditation III, he tries to prove the existence of God through two ways. In his first proof, he comes up with two claims: formal reality and objective reality, and the second proof is based on various sources of ideas.
Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury in the eleventh century created the Ontological argument. Suppose that the greatest conceivable being exist in the mind alone and not in reality, existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone, we can conceive of a greatest conceivable being that exits in reality as well as in the mind, therefore there is a being that is greater than the greatest conceivable being, but this is impossible for it is a contradiction, therefore it is false that a greatest conceivable being exists in the mind alone and not in reality (Pojman 41). The second Ontological argument is by Immanuel Kant, which criticizes Anselm’s argument. Kant’s argument is, it is possible that God exists. God must be conceived as being the greatest possible being. The greatest possible being must be a necessary being. The existence of a necessary being must be either impossible, merely possible, or necessary. We can conclude, for it cannot be impossible for a necessary being to exist, there is no contradiction in the concept of a necessary being. Nor can it be that a mere possibility the God exists, for such existence would be dependent and happenstance, and such a being could not be God. Therefore, a necessary being necessarily exits, that God does exist (Pojman
In René Descartes ' Mediations on First Philosophy, Descartes abandons all previous notions or things that he holds to be true and attempts to reason through his beliefs to find the things that he can truly know without a doubt. In his first two meditations Descartes comes to the conclusion that all that he can truly know is that he exists, and that he is a thinking being. In his third meditation, Descartes concludes that he came to know his existence, and the fact that he is a thinking being, from his clear and distinct perception of these two facts. Descartes then argues that if his clear and distinct perception would turn out to be false, then his clear and distinct perception that he was a thinking being would not have been enough to make him certain of it (Blanchette). However, Descartes is indeed certain of the fact that he is a thinking being, and that he exists. As a result of this argument, Descartes makes a conclusion that the things he perceives clearly and distinctly cannot be false, and are therefore true (Blanchette).
Descartes declares he has to determine if there is a God and if he does exist, whether he can be a deceiver. The reason he has to determine the existence of God and what he is, rests in his theories of ideas. This is because we do not know if there is an outside world and we can almost imagine everything, so all depends on God’s existence and if he is a deceiver.
Q2. Hume’s general objection to a priori arguments is that, the existence of an unchangeable and Deity is indemonstrable (p. 187). If we learn his entire nature, then we will conclude that his existence is impossible, which is not likely to happen. Matters do not require an explanation for their
Descartes gave a few arguments that God exists and is real. Desocrates believed our idea of God is that God is a perfect being, he believed he is more perfect to exist than not to exist. Desocrates also believed that God is a infinite being. Descartes idea would be that God gave us this idea to type this paragraph about him so he must be real. When he thinks negative of an idea or thought he wonders if an evil demon plotted those thoughts. If demons exist, so must God. Descartes believed God will not allow any evil demons to deceive anybody. We can not be for certain if God had a reason to teach humanity a lesson or allow an evil demon to do that
Although it may seem trivial to question the hypothetical being, Descartes’ arguments are also phrased cunningly to avoid questions. While Descartes is clearly considering even the most remote possibilities in his method of doubt, all he offers is the claim that such a being could exist. However, this is not seen as a solid basis upon which absolute doubt, required by Descartes, can be built. Ironically, his skepticism offers such that I am in a state of doubt, I will also have doubt about the possibility that there could even be a deceiving being. As such, my doubt about the possibility of such a being serves to undermine the greater doubt that is supposed to be generated by this being. In order for the evil demon to generate such a degree of doubt it must be possible for it to exist. However, Descartes does not provide enough proof for his claim of its possibility. This shows that Descartes’ evil demon argument fails to prove absolute doubt, which he
Summary: Descartes continues from his knowledge of his own existence to reason the existence of God, His benevolent nature, and the disparity between our knowledge and will. The argument Descartes presents to prove God’s existence is through a series of premises. He states that all ideas he perceives (of himself, corporeal
In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume makes a statement that is particularly jarring, especially when it is compared to the ideas of other philosophers. He says “the idea of God, as meaning an infinitely intelligent, wise, and good Being, arises from reflecting on the operations of our own
In “An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding”, David Hume proposes several arguments against the truth of Christian religion. In the beginning, Hume specifies two main arguments, in order to defy the logical reasoning of Christian religion. Firstly, Hume questions the honesty of the apostle’s testimony. Therefore, he believes that testimony of
In this reference to Transubstantiation, it is very apparent that Hume’s concern is more of a display of his hostility to Christianity both on intellectual and moral grounds than the miraculous dimension of the dogma. Thus in these historical narration he is contending that no human testimony is persuasive enough to establish a miracle so as to use it as a foundation of any system of religion.