This method is supportive of Descartes’s will to emphasis on doubt and question anything that can be doubted. Thus, he demonstrates the presence of God through a chain of consequences ‘Causal proof’. Because of the law of conservation of matter, the cause must equal the effect, if we have an idea of God than this idea is the effect and God is the cause (Gaarder, 2003). Therefore, the idea we have of God is an innate idea that we did not produce ourselves. Accordingly, he expresses that as a result of his innate thoughts of God, it only makes sense that it be God who "is the reason for this thought".
The philosophical arguments: 1. Cosmological Argument (Psalm 19:1-6) Naturalistic argument in which the existence of God is deduced or inferred as highly probable from facts concerning causation, change, or motion. (Plato and then Aristotle were associated with this argument) William Lane Craig is a contemporary defender of this argument.
According to a philosopher, Pascal Wenger, one 's belief about God existing is based on self-interest. He argues that it is in our interest to believe that God exists and hence from his point of view it is rational for us human beings to do so. Furthermore, he adds that if we believe in God 's existence and he truly exists then, we are bound to receive a reward in heaven but if he doesn 't exist we won 't have lost a thing. Finally, he concludes those who do not believe in God 's existence; then he exists they are bound to receive an endless penalty in heaven. Also, other arguments about the existence of God include the ontological perspective which tries to argue from the point of abstract reasoning.
If we are able to take things and apply what we know with the other information that we are able to ascertain, then we will begin to understand that Clark’s argument is necessary and true. Clark’s Cosmological Argument is often called the first cause argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists. The universe came into existence at a point in the distant past. Nothing can come into existence, though, unless there is something to bring it into existence; nothing comes from nothing. There must therefore be some being outside of the universe that caused the universe to exist.
2001 p. 180). To fully understand Anselm’s argument, a series of steps needs to be understood. The first step towards understanding Anselm’s argument is that one must first accept the fact that God is the greatest possible being. The second fact or point to note is that God exists in the human mind or understanding. The third point, step, or fact to accept is that if God exists only in the human mind, then God is not the greatest possible being (McGrath & OverDrive, Inc. 2001
Saint Anselm came up with the ontological argument that only a fool would believe that God does not exist. An ontological argument is hand in hand with a Platonic a priori where there is a strong attempt made to prove that God exists by the concept of his existence. Saint Anselm’s argument is that even someone thick minded, or has a low IQ can state that there is a God, and for this to be possible, God must exist. He backs his argument up by comparing what is imagined up in the mind and what is in reality. Reality is existence, and imagining something up is nonexistent.
This philosophical study will define the more rational argument of Thomas Nagel’s atheist perspective on the non-existence of God. In contrast to this view, Swinburne’s “theodicy” defines the “reason” in which God provides free will for human beings to choose between good and evil acts. Therefore, in Swineburne’s point of view, God exists because God allows good and evil to exist in the world, which attempts to validate theism through a perceived rational process under an omnipotent God. However, Nagel proposes that not only should a person not believe in God as an atheist, but that they should seek to argue that God does not exist at all. Nagel defines the inadequacies of religious paradigms, which create unscientific and illogical views that
That means that for the teleological argument to even begin with a sure foot, intelligence must be the source of all other sources of order. An assumption like that renders the argument weak already. Another weakness Hume points out through Philo is that this argument is incredibly human centric. The argument that indirectly tries to prove that man was made in God’s own image does the contrary.
The Cosmological Argument argues that the universe had to have been created by something greater, and more powerful than itself, such as God. This argument contends that the first cause of anything has no cause itself. The Teleological Argument asserts that the complex design of the world proves an intelligent, powerful creator. The Moral Argument cites God’s existence as the cause of morality. This argument asserts that humans follow moral laws that must have been created by a law giver.
Personally, I believe the conclusion of the transcendental argument for the existence of God. In my opinion, Immanuel Kant is more credible because he created the argument and supported it using many examples, whereas Michael Martin only found errors with the TAG. I agree with Kant because this theory is a cause and effect, meaning that God’s existence caused human reason. In Critique of Pure Reason, Kant states that logic originates from an individual’s belief in God. If someone believes that God created the world, then He is the reason why the laws of logic exist.
Anselm’s reasoning was that, if a being existed only in the mind but not in reality, then a greater being was conceivable (a being which exists both in the mind and in reality). Since God is an infinitely great being, therefore, God must exist. Anselm logically proved that God existed by our understanding aside from reality and our understanding combined with reality. Another argument is the cosmological arguments. It begins by examining some empirical or metaphysical fact of the universe, from which it then follows that something outside the universe must have caused it to exist.
To some degree, I believe that Descartes did confirm God’s existence, when one takes into consideration of the arguments that were presented and the limitations that were placed on the Meditator. For instance, when the Meditator was attempting to prove God’s existence by demonstrating that God does not depend on the existence of a substance, considering that God holds perfection in sovereignty and knowledge, which the idea of God could not be invented by the imagination or brought from the material world. This type of analysis was centered on the Meditator’s intellectual judgement, so that the Meditator could attain a clear and distinct idea of God by relying on the mind alone, since the Meditator understands that adventitious and factitious
In contrast to Dawkins’ opinion of a mindless origin of existence, Lennox believes that there is without any doubt a rational intelligence behind all creation, and that is God. Lennox argues his opinion by referring to the creator of all things as a person who created humans in his image, hence the fact than we too are persons. Lennox refers to this creator as Logos, meaning; not created but
Secondly, there is atheism which states that god does not exist. Lastly, there is agnosticism which states that it’s unclear that god does or does not exist. You would think if you don’t have enough evidence for god’s existence, it would be a good idea to go with the argument of agnosticism. However, there is sufficient evidence to prove that argument unsound. I will defend atheism because of all the evil that is prevalent in the world.
To do this he identifies different types of ideas that he possesses “among these ideas, some appear to me to be innate, some adventitious, and others to be formed [or invented] by myself” (Meditation 3). Innate ideas are inherent in his intellect, and because of this he concludes them to be true. He holds that his conception of God, as a being who possesses all possible perfections, is an innate idea that has been implanted into his mind by his creator. To further justify this claim, he provides his version of the ontological argument, proving that the existence of a God who possesses all perfections is self-evident.