Gottfried Leibniz Is A Strong Proponent Of The Idea That

God is defined as a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, that can affect nature and the lives of people. Many individuals around the world believe in the existence of a higher being known as God. The dilemma of God existing has troubled and people for thousands of years. Labeling “God” for most people is not an easy task because everyone has their own concept of who and what God means to them. In this paper, I would like to show that there is a God and he is not dead. The two arguments in favor of the existence of God are reason and experience. The Teleological and Ontological are two moral arguments that effect reasoning in connection to experience. Reason is an ontological argument by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the

Leibniz's position is that, if things are neither right nor wrong independently of God's will, then God cannot choose one thing over another because it is right. Thus, if he does choose one over another, his choice must be arbitrary. But a being whose decisions are arbitrary is not a being worthy of worship.

One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this

Leibniz and Aquinas adopt the view of contingency to explain the sufficient reason of ‘something rather than nothing’. To Hume’s fallacy of composition; which asserts that just because parts of a thing is caused by one thing, it is a mistake to believe the whole is created in the same way, it is only a matter of having one simple substance that makes up the whole thing. Let’s take for example a car which has different parts, made by different people; the wheel, the seats the doors etc. when each part is broken down into the simplest form in any form of matter, it is still an atom with sub atomic particles. Leibniz’s attempt to use contingency to suggest a cosmological argument is

According to Descartes’s “Trademark Argument” everything, mind and matter, has a cause in God’s respect. He believes that God exists due to the inference that if something is the cause of something else, that something exists. In the passage from page 25, part 5 of René Descartes’s “Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy,” the author attempts to explain the meaning behind the way God decided to: create the world as we know it, and maintain it. Descartes uses logic-based reasoning to explain 3 things: why he has an idea about God at all, how his idea was formulated, and why it is makes sense. René believes that God has had his influence in everything on this earth, natural, human, and material.

The actuality of a divine being the cause of our existence is a topic that has been debated by philosophers for centuries. To this day there is no clear answer as both sides of the argument give reasons to refute the opposing side’s arguments. Ernest Nagel is a well-known philosopher as he is recognized for his works against theism and for supporting atheism in his literary works. In Nagel’s “A Defense Of Atheism” he criticizes the theistic arguments that claim a god is overseeing our world. The ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments are known as the classical arguments for theism. Nagel swiftly pokes many holes in these arguments and runs them to the ground. Besides attacking the flaws in these arguments, Nagel also brings up

So in the end, Thomas Aquinas and Rene Descartes both attempted to prove the existence of God, but they differ in respect to the different thought processes to obtain the existence of God. An still to this day both Philosophers are regarded as key factor in the world of philosophy and their arguments were so influential that they were able to land a spot in our textbook “THE GREAT CONVERSATION”. But thanks to these gentlemen and their contributions to their works were able

Why does an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God allow natural and moral evil to happen without any restrictions? John Hick, a proponent of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s theodicy defense, answered: “in order that human beings, as free responsible agents, may use this world as a place of “soul making,” which involves the spiritual perfection of our character and persons” (Pojman 74). According to Hick, creation has not been finished its work, it is still undergoing a process, that is, the lives of individual human beings. Hick believed that God is omnibenevolent because he is allowing us to learn how to be perfect on our own.

Rationalism is the principle that maintains that through reason alone we can gain at least some positive knowledge of the world. The three major rationalists, Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza and Gottfried Welhelm Leibniz, used this idea in order to defy skepticism and expose the true nature of reality. However, each philosopher is frequently in disagreement. The idea for ‘God’, and what constitutes substance, matter and reality are the four key structural beliefs that aid each rationalist in the forming of their arguments. Yet, it is these four concepts and the arguments behind them that cause the inconsistency found in rationalism. The idea that reason can provide positive solutions to the various questions put forth is made doubtful

The Kalam Cosmological Argument presented by Dr. William Lane Craig states that everything that beings to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist; therefore: the universe has a cause. The Cosmological argument argues that the universe that we live in has a cause and purpose. There must be a creator (God) of the universe because the universe cannot have a cause without something or someone feeling the need to create. In the Craig-Dacey debate Dr. Dacey opening argument or rebuttal was aimed to disprove God’s existence. Dr. Dacey begin to show that the concept of God is self- contradictory.

As discussed in class, modern scientific research provides alternatives to Aquinas’s presumed necessities. An infinite series of causes no longer seems impossible. This research disproves Aquinas 's third premise (P3), and his argument for God as the first cause is consequently unnecessary. Furthermore, the fourth premise still has a logical gap between the first cause and God. Aquinas offers no explanation as to why the first cause must be God or a supernatural being at all. The first cause may just as easily be a spontaneous event, or a first cause may not exist at all in an infinite universal cycle.

“Reason prevailed over necessity by persuading it to steer the majority of created things towards perfection, and this was how the universe was originally created, as a result of the defeat of necessity by the persuasive power of intelligence.” (Timaeus,

The concept of God is central to the development of Cartesian and Spinozan philosophy. Although both philosophers employ an ontological argument for the existence and necessity of God the specific nature of God differs greatly with each account. While Descartes suggests a Judeo-Christian concept of God, Spinoza argues a more monistic deity similar to that of the Hindu tradition. The most significant difference however, lies within the basis and structure of each argument itself. Considered from an analytical standpoint through the lens of Gotlobb Frege, Descartes' proof of God possesses both sense and reference and is therefore capable of expressing the

My aim is to attempt to prove the point of two general division in the problem of evil, and initially clear up the confusion of the dichotomy between the probabilistic problem (how plausible is God's existence given evil) and the problem Leibniz deals with, the logical problem (pure possibility).

Spinoza’s statement of God’s existence as the only substance gives his argument a strong foundation from which to build the rest of his philosophy.