If a morally perfect creator (like God), created the world and had the ability to leave out particular horrors from the world, while leaving the world he created no worse for wear, then the morally perfect creator would leave out those horrors. 4. If an omnipotent being is the creator of the world, then he would be able to leave out particular horrors from the
The ontological argument states that perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails existence, and so the concept of God entails God’s existence. However, it can be argued that if God is an infinite goodness, then its contrary, evil, should not exist. Alas, there is evil in the world, and, therefore, God cannot exist. The ontological argument also seeks to demonstrate that God exists on the basis of concept alone. Pascal’s Wager attempts to justify the belief in God with an
The argument for God’s existence is that God is a perfect being, he is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, and supremely powerful. Descartes goes on to talk about how God exists because he can conceive of him as better than himself (AD 40). God is perfect and perfect at everything, and was the first thing that sent everything into motion (AD 45). God is the ultimate cause.
According to passages in the Bacchae and Discourse on Method, it cannot. As I mentioned in my introduction, Descartes talks about an idea of a being more superior to himself who he names as God. Because he knows he is imperfect, he deduces that the idea of perfection was, “…put in my mind by a nature that was really more perfect than I was, which had all the perfections that I could imagine, and which was, in a word, God (22).” If God is perfect, than why would he have imparted such a flawed justice system? You could argue that He gave us a pure idea of justice to begin with, and our sinful minds corrupted it, but that contradicts Descartes’s logic.
It is fair to refer to necessary existence as a perfection in its absence and causes a being to be less great than it would have been had it possessed such an attribute. So if existence being perfection was replaced with necessary existence, then it can be said that by looking at the definition of ‘God’, then we know God
The entire argument is predicated on various assumptions, such as the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience. The tension does not arise from God being all-powerful or all-knowing but in how God exercises those abilities. Nor does the tension arise from God being immanent but in the extent in which he is immanent. While others have attempted to provide an alternative way to solve the tension this article does not attempt to do so but rather accepts the current assumptions and evaluates the already pursued methods of solving the
In this essay, I will set out to prove that Thomas Aquinas’ First Cause Argument does not show that God exists and the conclusion that God exists does not follow from the premises of the first cause argument. I do think that the conclusion is valid and could be sound/or has the potential to be, but the premises fail to provide the basis upon which to reach such a conclusion. Hence, I will be raising some objections to the premises and will try to disprove any counter-arguments that could be raised in its defense. This would be done by examining Aquinas’ First Cause Argument and trying to disprove it whilst countering arguments in its defense.
God does not create everything to be perfect. If we would be perfect without sins, flaws, and problems then there would be no God, then we would be totally equal as God, and there would be no one higher and lower than us. There would be sinners, atheist, offenders in His own creation because simply He gave us free will. God allows evil to exist because of the free will. Humans is given their God-given freedom which is the free will, it is the power to make a decision of one individual instead of taking or having God to decide what to do.
The next step that Descartes uses in the second meditation is the existence of this Godly figure. He questions his own beliefs with that of the God, and argues that a mind should be capable of thinking for them to be of existence, “Is there not some God, or some other being by whatever name we call it, which puts these reflections into my mind? That is not necessary, for is it not possible that I am capable of producing them myself?” He then puts forward that for one to be deceived by this “evil demon” as he describes it, they have to exist to be deceived.
However since we already have an idea of God as this perfect and infinite being, he must exist. Furthermore, since the natural light clears deception as an imperfection as well as not existing, God is a non-deceiver, he exist and is perfect. After the cogito argument and natural light examination of the deceptive God, Descartes discards the hypothesis that God is a deceiver. Since God is all-good, he would not deceive us. For that reason, Descartes introduces the evil demon/genius instead.
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). This clear and distinct perception is an important component to the argument that Descartes makes in his fifth meditation for the existence of God. This paper explains Descartes ' proof of God 's existence from Descartes ' fifth meditation, Pierre Gassendi 's objection to this proof, and then offers the paper 's author 's opinion on both the proof and objection.
Rene Descartes statement, “I think, therefore, I am” laid the foundation for his Cogito Argument in the Mediations. Throughout his groundwork we come to interpret that “I think, whatever thinks, must exists, so I exist, and whatever exists is a thing, so I exist as a