If you agree that the faculty of judgment comes from God, and that God is a non-deceiver then you would also believe that the end would be impossible for the faculty of judgment to to be wrong. Is it even possible for anything from God not be the truth or
A proposition that is A priori is based on reasoning or knowledge that follows from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience. A strong argument that Descartes describes but rejects is the GOD Example where he states that GOD would have the omnipotence required to deceive us, even in rational thought. But, although he says that GOD could deceive us, that GOD wouldn’t because of he/she/it out not to. GOD is essentially perfectly good, therefore never does anything ought not to do. (Descartes “GOD = Good”).
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. One of the weaknesses of the Aquinas argument is that Aquinas contradicts himself when he rejects the possibility that the universe is unlimited.
Blaise Pascal adopts a one of a kind strategy in noting the endless question of God 's presence. Rather than belligerence for or against His reality like all those before him, Pascal strays from the generally accepted way to go and measures the merits against the inconveniences of the decision to accept. His contention, be that as it may, is jumbling, and welcomes the question; can faith in God really be diminished to a bet? Moreover, does this talk on confidence in God fit a bet 's status? Utilizing the thought of interminability for instance, Pascal reminds his gathering of people that there exist thoughts which are outside human ability to understand; however this does not deny their reality.
There is a saying that “Nothing comes from Nothing but something comes from something”. We can explain the origin of the universe and the reason why it is like this if we believe in god. Existence of being greater than any of us and the rules for over all creation. It is not necessary for physical existence of god. We can say that god exists by thinking about god.
For the above objections, a proponent of Pascal 's Wager can refute in such way. For example, Pascal 's Wager is not a complete denial of evidence, but rather that it is not immoral to use practical reasoning without sufficient evidence. Pascal 's Wager has support of decision-making theory to a great extent. Anyway, according to Pascal 's Wager, betting on not believing God is impossible to win. There is a free invitation from God.
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.
The concept of inclusivity for a christ-centered theist is, unsupported because God wont take nonbelievers into heaven. Christ-centered theists believe the law of non contradiction is true because, God wont let there be two things true at the same time. This one is rational because morality is based on something and not subjective.
In addition to distinguishing his system and criticizing the "total Spinozism", Wolff's system is more than capable of avoiding the accusations of "partial Spinozism". Wolff is allowed to posit contingency by allowing for the sufficient reason of the universe to the be the free will of God.27 Since God exists outside of the world, what happens in the world does not occur out of a fatal necessity, as it is was always possible for something to happen otherwise. The freedom that Lange supposes is not necessary to defend against universal fatalism, and therefore Wolff's account does not lead to fatalism, immoralism and atheism. This is especially the case when Wolff's account demands that God is outside the world and the world is not infinite. Wolff is capable of avoiding Lange's accusation of partial