So it questions the premises on which the fact "no greater than God can be conceived" was built upon. Thus it self-contradicts the idea of non-existence of God. So God exists because, to be the perfect being he has to exist. Thus God exists and the idea of non-existence of God is ruled out
Though they share no common properties, substance dualists maintain that the mind and body causally interact and influence one another. One of Descartes’ most established arguments for substance dualism relies on the assertion that conceivability entails possibility. He maintains that if he can clearly and distinctly conceive of one thing as separate from another, then it is possible that the two are distinct; and, since he can conceptually separate the mind from the body, it is possible for the former to exist without the latter. If the mind can exist without the body, then the two cannot be identical substances. I find that the following considerations provide a convincing argument against dualism, as both the empirical and logical conceivability of the mind existing without the body can be called
he cannot just state that ‘’ God doesn’t exist’’. As rationalism demands logic and concept so he can’t even state that ‘’ God is the one moving this whole universe’’. So a rationalist will take the existence of god as logically meaningless and he will take the position of a noncognitivist. The above example does not mean that rationalist cannot have any opinion about anything. An opinion that does not contradict logic observation or evidence does not prevent from forming an indefinite opinion.
The first step was to doubt everything that could be doubted: his senses, his prior knowledge (a priori), and his knowledge of the world (a posteriori). From this, he deduced that the only truth was that he existed, for no doubting can occur without a doubter. Thus arose the idea of mind, “a substance the whole essence or nature of which is to think”. Descartes then derived the existence of God from the idea of perfection; our idea of perfection must come from a perfect being (i.e. God), for imperfect beings such as ourselves cannot possibly conceive by ourselves the idea of perfection; that there is an idea God proves that God does indeed exist for God is the sum of all perfection.
This premise only makes sense because we’ve applied it to our ordinary lives. As Hume argues, the only way to ensure an everyday principle like causality still works in vastly different conditions is to have direct experience of it, which we cannot so the theory is invalid. Secondly, this argument functions on the basis of a priori judgments where philosophers attempt to reveal God through rational syllogism alone. The argument does not provide any validating evidence which weakens the
It argues that the mind is a substance that is independently exists, so that the mental does not have extension in space, and the material cannot think. Descartes is famously defended this type of Dualism and most theologies is compatible with this kind of dualism. This is because it claims that immortal souls occupy an independent "realm" of existence distinct from that of the physical world. Then, there is Property Dualism which claims that mind is a group of independent properties that emerge from the brain; however that it is not a distinct substance. So, when for an example, a matter is organized in the appropriate way like the way that living human bodies organized, the mental properties is emerge there are three main types of this kind of Dualism.
I have said it already: a thinking thing.” (Descartes, “Meditations on First Philosophy”, p19). This proof that he is aware of his own consciousness leads to his argument that he cannot doubt that he exists, but that he can doubt that he has a body. He explains his argument by saying, “For since I now know that even bodies are not, properly speaking, perceived by the senses or by the faculty of the imagination, but by the intellect alone, and that they are not perceived through their being touched or seen, but only through their being understood.” (Descartes, “Meditations on First Philosophy, p23) Therefore, since he is fully aware that the mind exists but can doubt the existence of the physical body, both the mind and body must be different substances. With this conclusion, Descartes can continue by distinguishing the differences between
These traits are the reason why most modern scholars describe him as a kind of mediator between myth and philosophy. Xenophanes’ criticism is directed against the epic interpretation of two epistemic topics: the difference between men and gods and the problem of absolute knowledge. His arguments concerning the first topic
Empiricists argue that humans gain knowledge through sensory perceptions; in detail, knowledge is attained through actual and physical interaction with the world. First of all, Locke asserts that there is no innate thing such as reason. He believe that what human possess from birth is only the capacity to reason, and every other knowledge is attained through the sensory experiences on the real world. Locke rebuts Descartes by arguing that there is no common idea accepted throughout the whole world and whole human-being. According to Descartes, there should exist a common and single concept because every human has innate idea at their birth.
His final thoughts on the subject are that he is having difficulty completely letting go of the idea that the body is known better than the mind, but he knows that it cannot be correct because there is no rationale that allows him to know something which is doubtful such as the body, better than the mind which has survived his skepticism. In Descartes’ mind, the self is something that thinks and exists, but he cannot say the same for the body which he claims does not