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.
Ever since the ancient and medieval eras of philosophy there have been debates amongst philosophers and theologians concerning the existence of, and attributes that should be ascribed to, the existence of God. In majority of religions around the world, this knowledge of ‘God’ exists; a being perceived as the supreme one, the creator of all. Now the term ‘God’, does not refer to any particular religious’ deities but a term that can cover everything from a perfect omnipotent being to something that can be considered quite ordinary (Dvorsky, 2016). Of the numerous philosophical arguments that have formed, the most well-known range from Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas’s similar cosmological argument which claims that there must be a reason for this
Furthermore, the mind is believed to have been given to us by God in order to reach the truth; even Abdu’l-Baha, the successor of the Baha’i faith, states that “God has given us rational minds for this purpose, to penetrate all things, to find truth. If one renounce reason, what remains? The sacred texts? How can we understand God’s commands and to what use can we put them without the balance of reason?” Explaining that it would not be possible for them to gain access to everything without the usage of reason and that we would not be able to properly use God’s teachings without reason. The Baha’i resemble those who follow monism, accepting science and reason, though the difference is that the Baha’i see science as being given to by God and not a part of God, as in
What if nothing is real and it is all an illusion? And we are just connected by an experience machine that creates this images and send signs to our brains that makes us think we are seeing, touching, smelling, hearing, and or tasting. If you think about it even though it sounds crazy it makes sense if you believe in God. But what if you do not, or do not believe that we do live in a matrix? Then you would have to answer to the questions that the humanity has make for centuries.
He does an excellent job of explaining his thoughts and views of the matter, which help to both create and support the dualist position of the nature of the mind. He comes to the final conclusion that the mind and the body are in fact two separate substances. This is also his thesis for the essay and creates the theory that is now know by modern philosophers as mind-body
All of these things he attributed to the watch is in like fashion attributed to the universe. Hume’s response to this is through is character Philo, Philo said that we should not judge the attributes of god on something like Paley proposes. Philo argues that we cannot judge the entirety of the universe on one single part of nature because nature has an infinite number of springs of principle. Also that we cannot base God on our
Pascal makes the argument for the belief in God through the use of Decision Theory. He states that there are two options of belief and two possible realities, creating the four combinations: you believe in God and God exists, you believe in God and God doesn’t exist, you don’t believe in God and God exists, and you don’t believe in God and God doesn’t exist. Next Pascal assigns predicted measures of gain or lose for each combination, as if it is proven true. Here he reasons that If a person truly believed in God and God does exist, they will be rewarded infinitely, furthermore he says that if they believe and God doesn’t exist they lose nothing On the Other hand he says that a person doesn 't believe in God and God exists they stand to lose, and if they don’t believe and God doesn’t exist they neither lose nor gain. Through these predicted measures of gain and lose Pascal proves that choosing to believe is not only the most appealing option but the only rational choice.
Many philosophers believe that there are reasons to demonstrate the God does exist through arguments. There are three main types of arguments that explain the existence of God. These include Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological, which are all traditional arguments. There are two groups that divide the arguments “An a posteriori argument is based on premises that can be known only by means of experience of the world (e.g., that there is a world, that events have causes, and so forth). An a priori argument, on the other hand, rests on premises that can be known to be true independently of experience of the world (Pojman 19).
Meditation II Descartes begins to analyze himself since he stripped away all of his beliefs in “Meditation I”. By stripping everything away, Descartes wills himself to doubt everything, the physical world, his senses, his body, etc. This state of mind takes its toll and Descartes understands that he must challenge his doubts even though he is uncertain how to resolve them. Descartes world gets turned upside down as he begins to face his doubts, and returns to the beginning which is allows him to doubt everything again. He continuous this course of doubt until one he is able to find real truth, or he realizes that nothing is assured.
What you once won and held did not stay with you all your lifelong” (107). Oedipus was once a man that was not physically blind but in truth he was. But now in a reversed position, Oedipus is a man that is physically blind but in truth is not. All things considered, Oedipus was in denial and was blinded from truth. As he came closer to the truth he finds himself praying that the prophecy will not come true.