In John Locke’s, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke develops an argument for the existence of God. In the the following paper, I shall first reconstruct Lockes’ argument for his claim of God’s existence. I shall then identify what I take to be the weakest premise of the argument and explain why I find it in need of justification. The following is a reconstruction of Lockes’ argument: 1) Man has a clear perception of his own being 2) If man knows his own being, then man knows that bare nothing cannot produce a being 3) Therefore, man knows that bare nothing cannot produce a being (from 1 and 2) 4) If bare nothing cannot produce a being, then there has been an eternal being 5) Therefore, there is an eternal (infinite) being
The one weakness of Anslem argument is that he didn 't give enough evidences for God existence in reality. Another weakness posed by St Aquinas, as Anselm states God is "that which nothing greater can be conceived" then to understand God in this way is to be equal to him, which Anselm is human and cannot be equal to God. The one strength of Aquinas argument: Aquinas was influential philosopher concerning the different people who have different concepts of God, and how they could understand and accept his argument. Aquinas also presented five ways as evidences to argue the existence of God. One of the weaknesses of the Aquinas argument is that Aquinas contradicts himself when he rejects the possibility that the universe is unlimited.
He can do things beyond our thinking. If He has the power to do things beyond our imagination, how come there are still imperfections in our world? How come there are people who oppose Him? Atheism is the absence of belief in any gods or spiritual beings . They still follow moral codes like us; nevertheless they can create decisions without the help from God.
A proposition that is A priori is based on reasoning or knowledge that follows from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience. A strong argument that Descartes describes but rejects is the GOD Example where he states that GOD would have the omnipotence required to deceive us, even in rational thought. But, although he says that GOD could deceive us, that GOD wouldn’t because of he/she/it out not to. GOD is essentially perfectly good, therefore never does anything ought not to do. (Descartes “GOD = Good”).
God can exist without existence, God is everything but God is nothing, God is the highest parameter of something and also God has no parameters. We don’t have control on God and also we don’t have evidence in favour and in unfavoured of god we can only do that we can assume God or don’t. Everyone has his/her own definition of God. Did we analyse whole universe if so then did we understand outside the universe? If not then how we can say God physically not
Argument for the existence of god is being proposed in several ways. Some based on science while some are about personal experience and some on philosophical arguments such as ontological arguments, first cause arguments, arguments based on deign, moral arguments. Each of these support conception. Ontological argument say that if you inculcate the idea of god , we can see him . There is a saying that “Nothing comes from Nothing but something comes from something”.
Now could Ockham’s Razor be placed against the arguments of those who believe or don’t believe in a higher being? The existence of God is something that philosophers and regular people question all the time. Two philosophers questioned the existence of God; Anslem and Aquinas. The Ontological Argument, or the argument of existence, was put out by Anslem. Anslem believed in the existence of a supreme being and proved that it was possible to believe in someone like that.
As a counter argument it is faulty, and ultimately fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the traditional God exists and has an adequate reason for evil. In a court of law, the burden of proof falls onto the prosecution to prove their claim beyond a reasonable doubt while the defense counters their position by establishing some doubt. The prosecution can be seen as Craig as he claims the existence of a God, whereas Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheism only exists in relation to theism. Atheism is a response to theism but theism is an idea in itself, independent of atheism. In other words, without theism atheism would not exist, as such without a claim made by the Crown the defense is not needed.
PAPER #2 History of philosophy: Philosophy 20B Thomas Aquinas reasons that “God is one” in the Summa theologiae, part one, question eleven, article three. Using three proofs, one on “Gods simplicity,” the second on “the infinity of Gods perfection” and the last based on “the unity of the world.” The following will be Dissecting and providing explanations along with criticism. As well, what it is meant by “God is one”. The claim of God being one means that God is independent of any other being. He lacks nothing and does not require anything else to help or to complete himself.
He also stated that “For since I know that my own nature is very weak and limited, whereas the nature of God is immense, incomprehensible and infinite, I also know without more ado that he is capable of countless things whose causes are beyond my knowledge”. Descartes believed that it is his mind that prevents him from understanding why God gave him the chance to create human error. The model of descartes human error problem does not succeed because nothing can be seen or perceived without the mind, and the mind is everything for us at the moment. Altough the physical body and the mind are different both are controlled by the mind. This means that even thought descartes can not see God he still believe in him, and anything that have anything evil like actions who knows it did not come from God.