Review Of Samuel Clark's Argument For The Existence Of God

Aquinas claimed that God exists because of the causal nature of possibility and necessity. He thought that a thing in nature either exists or does not exist. If it is possible for something to not exist, he said, then it did not exist at some point in the past. Aquinas then claimed that it is impossible to follow an infinite chain of creation of existence, as the origin must eventually be reached. Therefore, at some time there was only one existing thing – the cause of existence for all other existing things.

1.The reason why it is hard to believe that God exists is the calamities that people have no explanation. “The lack of any conclusive, formal (deductive) proof that God does not exist provides no reason whatever that God does exist” (Hanson 310-311). 2. There is no need for God to prove that he is there becasue “God cannot be conceived not to exist. --God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived”(Anselm 4).

I will argue that Descartes ' proof of God in theory sounds valid, until one realizes they 're being led in a circle. Descartes has an idea of an infinite, perfect (omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent) being or God. He believes the fact he, a finite being, can imagine such a perfect being, must mean this being instilled the idea in his mind. He claims that this idea is clear and distinct, or in other words, cannot be denied. Therefore God exists, and because God exists, he would not deceive Descartes by allowing him to have clear and distinct ideas that are false (SparkNotes Editors).

Cleanthes’s second objection rests on the rationale that even if everything in Demea’s argument is sound, it is still not enough to conclude the existence of God. Cleanthes grants the fact that Demea’s argument is sound in proving the existence of a necessarily existing being. But who’s to say this necessity is god? Why not the material universe for example? Cleanthes argues that we are clueless in knowing anything about the qualities and mechanics of necessary existence and therefore by no means have the authority in giving priority to God being the necessary cause over something

To Descartes’s first proofs about God exists because He is a perfect being, Hume would say that no individuals can say that God gives them the idea of perfection since individuals do not know what perfection is because “nothing in our experience even remotely resembles perfection, eternity, or infinite power.” Therefore, as a result, this proof of God’s existence does not work. Descartes’ second proof would be rejected by Hume too, because his second proof does not have any evidence, and it is created from any sense experience; therefore, it is just “meaningless utterance” to

The island that Guanilo speaks of, or any other potential substitute for that manner, does not reflect necessary being and is contingent. Only God can be that which nothing greater can be conceived (447). Guanilo’s argument fails to disprove the credibility of the ontological argument because it attempts to replace the concept of God with something that belongs to an entirely distinct category. Anselm’s ontological argument is important because it leaves no gray area concerning spiritual faith. The second portion of the argument asserts that God’s existence is either possible or impossible, and if possible, then He exists necessarily (445).

This argument says that everything must have a cause, but in the end says that God has no cause. It is contradictory. It does not actually say that God exists, but that we can call the unknown cause of everything god. The word god can be the name for some energy that caused the Big Bang. The final argument is the ontological argument.

Although, improvements may have been made, Descartes’ argument suffers from the same fallacious reasoning present in Anselm’s argument. Before breaking down the argument it is important to note that Descartes defines God as “a Being supremely perfect” (Meditation 5). He begins the argument with a claim regarding essence: “When I imagine a triangle, although there may nowhere in the world be such a figure outside my thought, or ever have been, there is nevertheless in this figure a certain determinate nature, form, or essence” (Meditation 5). Elaborating upon what was said here, all things, whether they exist or not, have an essence. In this case, a triangle has in it’s essence, the property of three

If someone believes that God created the world, then He is the reason why the laws of logic exist. Everything humans know today is because God himself made it that way. Humanity can be logically explained by God’s existence because if we believe in the religious stories which

The starting points of our worldview are about who God is, what the universe is like, and who man is. The first question we may ask is: What is the nature of God? It can be difficult for us to see that God is both infinite and personal. He is all knowing and powerful, yet still able to communicate with His creation. God has always been, and will always be.