We know clear and distinct perceptions independently by God, and his existence provides us with a certainty we might not possess otherwise. However, another possible strategy would be to change Gods role in Descartes philosophy. Instead of seeing God as the validation of clear and distinct perceptions, rather see him as a safeguard against doubt. This strategy, however, is a problem since it re-constructs the Meditations – Philosophical work of Descartes –.This is because it would not be God, who is the ultimate foundation of knowledge, but the clear and distinct
He claims that we can be certain of what we clearly and distinctly perceive without knowing that God exists, but only at the time when we perceive it. God’s existence adds a general certainty to what we clearly and distinctly perceive to be true. Descartes says, “When I said that we can know nothing for certain until we are aware that God exists, I expressly declared that I was speaking of knowledge of those conclusions that can be recalled when we are no longer attending to the arguments by which we deduced them.” This meaning that when in regard to the earlier quotes of, “I am certain that God exists only because I am certain of whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive and I am certain of whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive only because I am certain that God exists,” of which is claimed to be circular, Descartes claims there are two interpretations to these. According to the first statement, while we are clearly and distinctly perceiving some particular proposition, then we can be certain of that proposition, but because of the possibility of the evil demon, I lose this certainty as soon as we turn our attention away from it, as we may have been deceived that we did in fact actually perceive it clearly and distinctly. So, therefore we do not actually know that the proposition is true unless we are actually attending to it.
Furthermore, in the article, Aquinas states that if God exists, he is considered to be “Infinite Goodness.” It also states, “If god existed then there would be no evil discoverable, but there is evil in the world.” I believe that this is a good argument made against God because it is so true. If God is suppose to be “good,” and “powerful” then why did he create evil? To me this is an example that clearly shows that God could possibly not exist. All in all, there are many arguments for the
Whether that being our parents or people that make everyday objects that we see around us. Aquinas believed that as nothing can cause itself there must have been a first cause that caused life to exist, so he then goes on to say that the first cause for everything around us, must be god. The third way that was presented by Aquinas is the difference between possibility and necessity; he believed that nothing around us we see has to
Success of Aquinas’s Cosmological Argument Thomas Aquinas’s cosmological argument is a posteriori argument that Aquinas uses to prove the existence of God. Aquinas argues that, “Nothing can move itself, so whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this causal loop cannot go on to infinity, so if every object in motion had a mover, there must be a first mover which is the unmoved mover, called God.” (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3). I do agree with Aquinas’s cosmological argument in proving the existence of God with several reasons. According to the cosmological argument, first of all, Aquinas claims that, “it is impossible that a thing should be both mover and moved, namely it should not move itself.” (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3) This part of the argument is obviously correct.
However, this would be absurd, seeing as that nothing greater than God can be conceived in anyway. So a being, which nothing greater can be conceived, God, does in fact exist. According to Joel Fienberg’s text, Reason and Responsibility, an Ontological argument is defined as “an argument for the existence of God stating that the very concept or definition of God automatically entails that God exists; because the special nature of the concept, there is no way that God could fail to exist” (pg. 722). This argument is formulated around the idea that God is a being, which no greater being can be conceived.
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
I feel that this argument fails to prove the existence of God. There is no real proof that God created the universe or people based on the teleological argument, although it is a valid argument, I just do not think that it is plausible that God created the earth. There are many other theories that give more evidence and better proof that counter the teleological argument. Works
Although this possibility does not address the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” It supports certain finite causes. An infinite regress of causes for existence could have not started off from a first cause because the finite cause caused the first and a finite cause caused that find and so forth, meaning that the if you Consider C then you have to consider A because both possibilities acknowledge that there’s an infinite cause of existence. This possibility is implausible because it is already confirmed that the universe is finite and that a first finite cause caused the universe into being. This possibility infinitely fights off the problem of
Free will means that God does not have any set destiny for us. If God were to create free agents that could only choose good, that would mean that God laid out a destiny of good for all agents. Even though God is omniscient, free will is still possible because while God may know the choices we are going to make, he is not the cause of them. Since God does not choose or cause our destiny, we still have free will. In response to the option in which God creates a world with free agents and no evil, a world with no evil would mean a world with no good, so it would be impossible for God to create a free agents that only choose good, since evil does not exist.