One goes by the name “Cartesian spiral”. This suggests that the distinct and clear perception that proves Gods existence is different from the other perceptions. The Cartesian spiral is based on a mathematical equation, as “2+2=4” is clear and distinct, but a judgement and that is open to error. While the clear and distinct perception of Gods existence is just an idea and with no judgement attached. We know clear and distinct perceptions independently by God, and his existence provides us with a certainty we might not possess otherwise.
The teleological theory offers no scientific evidence, or evidence of any kind for the creation of the universe, it is based loosely on an analogy. The analogy opinion is too broad to be valid. I believe that things like volcanos and earthquakes that happen naturally are better explained by science. These things seem more probable in a universe that was created randomly by science, by the big bang, than if the universe was created specifically for a certain function by
Secondly, Aquinas concludes that common sense observation tells us that no object can create itself. In other words, some previous object creates it, but there cannot be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist. Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an uncaused first cause that begins the chain of existence for all things. I quite assent to the idea that there must have a first unmoved mover to put the universe into motion. As we all know, everything has a beginning and an end, so as to the universe.
The relationship between a theistic God (considering there is one) and morality cannot be explained in simply a few sentences. One may immediately come to the conclusion that God decides what is moral and immoral. This is known as Divine Command Theory which says that morality is dependent on God’s commands. However, this gives rise to the other side that says an action is moral because God approves of it. This is known as the Autonomy thesis which says that morality is not dependent on God’s commands.
The first part of being timeless deals with existence. In order for a being, A, to be timeless, A must exist, but not in any specific temporal location or time. You could say that although A does not exist at any time, A exists in “eternity.” It is important to realize that time and eternity are different things. “Time” as most people today understand it would likely be defined as the progression of moments. This progression of moments would be similar to the motion of an object.
The universe is like the watch in the sense that it has complex features that work together perfectly; therefore the universe like the watch must have been designed. Teleologist’s like Paley would argue that the only one with such power to crate the universe is God. However this argument does not demonstrate empirical evidence to God’s existence, it only concludes that there is a designer, not that he designer is God. Therefore ‘God exists’ is not an empirical hypothesis as there is no known empirical method of proving God’s existence. Secondly ‘God exists’ is not an empirical hypothesis because the knowledge
What if there is no level of “maximal greatness” in one world? What if the difference of “maximal greatness” between worlds is vast? Both of these questions and many more raise doubts to the truth of the argument presented by Garcia. The larger issue that resonates in my mind is that there is no logical rebuttal to defend against these accusations. With such a complex and difficult topic to discuss and articulate, I have difficulties believing that there is such a “maximally great” being in every world with no differences between the
To incorporate both of these possible outcomes, the universe splits into two. In one universe the physicist measures the object in wave form, while in the other universe; the object is measured in particulate form. An important feature of this split, however, is that an individual is unaware of his existence in the alternate universe. Theoretically, this hypothesis is the exact opposite of the Copenhagen interpretation with the latter stating that mechanics is not associated with objective reality, and merely deals with the observation and measurement of energy which come under neither the established idea of particles nor that of waves (Faye 1). On the contrary, the Many-worlds hypothesis implies that reality is directly linked to the universal wave function and its implications which are therefore, applicable at a bigger level (Everett 109).
He therefore rejected an infinite universe because he did not believe that it was a satisfactory explanation for its existence. Copleston supported Aquinas’ rejection of infinite regress on the grounds that an infinite chain of contingent beings could only ever consist of contingent beings, which would never be able to bring itself into existence. However, Bertand Russell opposed that the cosmological argument was evidence for the existence of God, he rejected the idea of contingency also, and he argued that a ‘necessary being’ has no meaning. Kant examined the argument of the existence of a supreme being as a first cause of the universe. He argued that cause and effect can only be applied to the world.