Descartes most famous phrase “I think, therefore I am” shows that we cannot be deceived of our own existence as we cannot think if we exist if we do not in fact exist. Descartes’ second part of the hypothesis for the Evil Demon argument refutes the idea of there being such a being with the assumption of a God. With the assumption of a God who is merciful and kind the chance of an evil being deceiving and tricking us would be highly unlikely to happen. Therefore, we can be very sure that we are not being deceived by an evil demon, only for those who believe in God. Other people who do not would rather not believe in the existence of God than believe the uncertainty of everything else (Descartes first mediation, page 202).
However, his claims can be refuted on the basis that, when one says that “no greater God can be conceived”, then one would only be talking about God. The word God is what you call a being that is above all understanding. Secondly, the lack of complete understanding of a God that is greater than any other is the basis of Anselm’s argument. In other words, one needs not understand how it is that no other greater God exists, because it is not possible to do that. It is the concept of understanding that such a being exists that is important.
He states that it is disbelief in existence of demons. Therefore, we see deception as one of the primary characteristics of Screwtape. Lewis attributes deception as a central tactic used by demons to win over the human souls. The devil realizes that he needs to establish different forms of theatricality and deception. Otherwise, human choices will lead man to God.
This logical incompatibility between evil and God’s actuality can be made evident in two additional principles provided by Mackie. These are if something is omnipotent, it can do anything and if something is omnibenevolent it will eliminate as much evil as possible. Mackie claims God’s omnipotent characteristic is dependent on him being all powerful. If God is omnipotent than the subjection to limitations, such as the inevitability of evil, should not arise. This first premise is in relation to the second and third because if God is all powerful, wholly good and in existence, the product of his work, our world, should be a reflection of his being.
Rene Descartes argues that since he is capable of being deceived, therefore knows that he is a “thinking thing” (Descartes 65). First, Descartes questions the existence of everything, he begins to doubt if anything is real. After this, he continues by addressing beliefs that rest on his senses, questioning things such as his dreams and how his senses delude him during his sleep. He then continues addressing how the truths of arithmetic and geometry may not be immune to radical doubt. Although the truths of arithmetic and geometry seem so concrete, Descartes continues by supposing that there may exist an “evil genius” who “has employed all his energy to deceive me[him]” (Descartes 65).
Consequently, by Macbeth lying, cheating, and murdering to obtain his power, he then by doing so influenced the country into doing the same thing. For evidence of this if you look at 4.2. ?? Lady Macduff further supports this assessment by saying, “I am in this earthly world, where to do harm. Is often laudable, to do good sometime Accounted dangerous folly.” Which supports the play theme of Fair foul and foul is fair.
The character to do so in the story Candide is the philosopher, Martin. However, although he has a pessimistic personality, it gives also provides him with the gift of reason. His sense of reason shows when Candide says "Surely you must be possessed by the devil," and Martin replies "He is so deeply concerned in the affairs of this world," answered Martin, "that he may very well be in me, as well as in everybody else; but I own to you that when I cast an eye on this globe, or rather on this little ball, I cannot help thinking that God has abandoned it to some malignant being…” (Voltaire, 100) Martin not taking note of Candide’s sense of humor, replies with a serious speech, he ponders the whole meaning of what he says and gives them a wholehearted answer. Being possessed by the devil is simply not possible, Martin knows this for himself and shows it by responding to Candide with a logical approach. Another example of Martin’s pessimistic yet realistic ideas can be seen when Candide asks him “But for what end, then, has this world been formed?” Martin replies, “To plague us to death” With this answer, he manages to completely omit and positivity that might have been able to be included.
The doubter is known as the evil deceiver, because it creates the complex explanations which can’t be verified, makes the truly vulnerable and breakable. However, in order to have a doubt, an individual is thinking or doubting an idea it means, they exist. As he mentioned in one of this mediations, I think, therefore, I am.” Descartes believes, that human mind is the foundation where all the ideas and the perceptions are being tested, either the truth is absolute, possible or impossible. Similarly, in his mediation, he has talked about the idea of individualism and free will. How humans mind has the ability to change an idea or perceptions if they doubt something, in his mediation he has mentioned, “I am so imperfect that I am always deceived”.
While he knows that his actions are immoral, he embraces it fully by calling for evil forces to help in his plans to destroy Othello’s life. This imagery shows Iago’s true nature to the audience, one that wishes for the corruption of people’s lives and actively acting it out. Moreover, Iago refers to himself as a devil in a soliloquy after Cassio drunkenly --------, saying "When devils will the blackest sins put on, / They do suggest at first with heavenly shows, / As I do now" (2.3.351-353). He reveals his intentions to harm Othello to the audience, showing that he does not have empathy for Othello or those his actions would affect, showing his ------------------------------------------------------------------------. Iago is also called a devil by other characters in the play after he is found out to be the one who orchestrated Othello’s undoing.
I think that there is a self-defeating quest: The self-defeating quest is based on the words Descartes uses which defeats his task of doubting all beliefs. Since language is a medium to express one’s doubt then why does Descartes not doubt the certainty of the words he is using to formulate the doubts .So, his attempt to doubt is self-defeating as he never questions the meaning of the words used by him to express his doubts. Descartes wants to prove the existence of God because the possibility of being controlled by the evil genius makes him doubt everything about himself and whatever he perceives. When we say "God is," logically we are really saying "for all x, if x is a God, then x exists. Therefore, when Descartes predicates existence of God he is uttering a grammatically coherent sentence, but a very confusing logical proposition.
But he notes that this need not convince anyone that there is no reason for believing in God:the theologian can, if he wishes, accept this criticism. He can admit that no rational proof of God’s existence is possible. And he can still retain all that is essential to his position, by holding that God’s existence is known in some other, non-rational way.”Mackie’s aim is to show that philosophy is not only capable of criticizing arguments for God’s existence, but also showing that God does not exist, thus closing off the position of the theologian
that there exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or lesser evil.”(Rowe 370) In that case, the theists counterargument is as solid as that of the atheists’. With the G.E. Moore shift, the theists are able to argue for God’s existence without denying the premise presented by the atheists. However, the problem with those two objections is that they don’t necessarily prove God’s existence. For the objections only prove that it is difficult to assume God’s non-existence.
He says that it is really not possible to change ones mind on their philosophy such as Aquinas did in this argument. He said that one cannot say that there are certain causes for why things happen, then turn around and say that the universe we live in has a main cause. This was just one of the main critiques of this argument. Along with the past two arguments, there is another argument that deals with God’s
Reason can adequately attain certain conclusions, but it should not be treated separately from faith because faith can help prevent mishaps in judgment. As Pope John Paul II outlines in Fides Et Ratio, during the Fall “man was in no position to discern and decide for himself what was good and what was evil,” (Paul II 14). Man needed God to assist him in making the right choice but instead acted prideful and tried to use solely reason. Sin enables reasoning to become distorted, which ultimately impairs the truth when man attempts to avert himself from God. When this occurs, man ultimately becomes “the fool” (Paul II 12) by attempting to avoid the assistance God can provide.
Decision are not made in advance. Therefore, free will is possible under an omniscient God. Response to Objections While Lewis made a valid argument in defense of Theological Fatalism, he has failed to recognize that predestination, in any form, still warrants that one’s actions will be predetermined. Opponents of Lewis’ argument would argue that even though god exists in an timeless realm, we still can not act out of free will. The argument is as follows: God timelessly knows that I will do C. If god timelessly knows that I will do C,then C is now-necessary.