This leads to the famous objection that he uses the existence of God to establish his doctrine of clear and distinct ideas, and that he uses his doctrine of clear and distinct ideas to establish the existence of God: his argument is circular. It seems that Descartes says that firstly “I am certain that God exists only because I am certain of whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive” but secondly
Can the conception of God simply be universally acknowledged and accepted by everyone, everywhere? If there is conception of God, then the idea of God should exist. The initial presentation states, “you who grant understanding to faith, grant that, insofar as you know it is useful for me, I may understand that you exist as we believe you exist, and that you are what we believe you to be.”(Encountering the Real Faith and Philosophical Enquiry; “Anselms Ontological Argument” – St. Anselm, pg. 139). It is always difficult to understand and comprehend for anything to exist realistically.
Descartes declares he has to determine if there is a God and if he does exist, whether he can be a deceiver. The reason he has to determine the existence of God and what he is, rests in his theories of ideas. This is because we do not know if there is an outside world and we can almost imagine everything, so all depends on God’s existence and if he is a deceiver. “To prove that this non-deceiving God exists, Descartes finds in his mind a few principles he regards as necessary truths which are evident by the “natural light” which is the power or cognitive faculty for clear and distinct perception.” If arguments is presented in logical trains of thought, people could not help but to be swayed and to understand those arguments. Natural light
(Heb. 6:1 faith is the substance of things hope for and the evidence of things not seen. I would answer the Axiological question by saying, “God is the creator of the for universe.” Not only does he creates everything, he is everything. So that means because God is of value, we are of value too.We have to always keep God center. (Exodus 20:3 You shall have no other Gods me.)
His cosmological argument states that every affect has a cause, which itself has a cause. You cannot have an infinite chain of causation so there must be a first cause. This first cause must be God. The second role that was established by Aquinas for God is Causa Sine - the first cause. God being transcendent does not need a cause but he is the first cause for everything within the universe.
Anselm displays his argument in two parts, the first part being based on a deductive argument; if the premise is true then the conclusion is also true, it claims that existence is greater than non-existence. The second part of the argument claims that necessity is greater than contingency. From this Anselm came to the conclusion that God must exist In Proslogion 2, Anselm claims that existence is greater than non-existence. According to Anselm “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived” God is greater than any being a human can imagine, there is nothing that can be greater than God. Following that, Anselm gave an example of a painter and his painting, this example went on to prove that existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind, if the painter imagines the painting in his mind, it will not be as great as the painting that will exist in reality when he paints it.
God occupies the main place in Berkeley’s metaphysics. Indeed, Berkeley’s entire philosophical project is directed as establishing God’s existence. The central role of God in Berkeley’s metaphysics can be seen when he ends his Principles of Human Knowledge by declaring that “what deserves the first place in our studies is the consideration of God and our duty, which to promote was the main drift and design of my labours” ( Berkeley 1982, P. 87). For Berkeley, God is not simply the creator of the universe, but a “provident governor, actually and intimately present, and he is attentive to all of our interests and motions”. In A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge published in 1982, there are passages that Berkeley treats the
In this essay I am going to focus on Anselm ontological argument and comment on its strengths and weakness of his argument to prove the existence of God. Anselm’s ontological argument can be seen as a Reductio ad absurdum, which means it is a logical argument that aims to prove contention by demonstrating that its denial leads to absurdity. Anselm’s argument explains that it is contradictory for someone to accept that God to exist in understanding and not in reality. This is because according to the existence of perfection a doctrine that something is greater if it exists in addition t being thought of, and God is greater than which nothing can be thought therefore He has to exist in both understanding and reality. The argument goes like this: 1.
Name: Rani B. Saliba Writing Style Used: APA Fifth Course and Section Number: Theo 201 – B16 Short Essay on Inspiration and Inerrancy of the Bible First we’ll discuss the authority of the bible; Authority is defined as “the right and power to command”. The authority of the bible comes from the fact that the fact that the bible is the physical result of God revelation of himself to mankind. In John 1:14 it says “14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Jesus is described as the word of god. And Mathew28:18 say “Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”.
The basic premise of the Kálam argument is that something must of caused the universe to begin to exist, this cause must be necessary therefore it is God. The Kálam argument agrees with the term infinite regression, in which is a chain going infinitely back in time with no beginning. St. Thomas Aquinas was a believer of the cosmological argument, Aquinas set out ex nihilo nihil fit, basically meaning nothing comes from nothing, Aquinas believed since nothing can come from nothing, the universe exists so therefore God must of made it. Aquinas’ theory is equivalent to the second way, in which is ‘causation’. The second way states that cause and effect are natural, whatever happens is caused by something, and something cannot cause itself because that would mean