What Does It All Mean?

Thomas Nagel presents various arguments regarding various philosophical questions namely, free will, how do we know anything, and what is the meaning of life? Nagel pointed out that the inside of your mind is the only place where one can be sure of oneself (Nagel 8). He also purports that anything ranging from the universe, human beings, physical structures like buildings and roads; even our own body is based on our experiences, thoughts and sensations (Nagel 11). Whether one feels a tennis ball, or jumps up and down on a bouncing castle; everything else is distant from the inner sensation and experiences, can only reach us through ourselves. Additionally, Thomas points that free will is hard to exercise and that

To begin with, Anselm introduces the Ontological argument as a viral component of the religious aspect of mankind. The presence of a God should not be debated. He portrays this God as an all perfect being that represents the divine concept. He argues that no being is greater than God whether imagined or perceived by the human mind. From the human perspective of divinity, God’s existence is merely an idea of the mind. Even though man’s imagination can present an even higher being than God, it fails to make sense in philosophical principles since it is contradictory. Also, the existence of God can be conceptualized. This means that the senses of man are enough to act as proof of the presence of a being higher and more powerful than him. Philosophy allows for proof to be logical and factual as well as imaginative. From this point, the objection to an idea or imagination such as the existence of God makes his

Humans are finite substances so they cannot come up with the ideas of infinite substances unless it were given to them by an infinite substance. Descartes continues that while we advance gradually each day these attributes could never exist within us because we are only potentially perfect whereas God is actually perfect. Furthermore, Descartes argues that only God could be the author of his being because if it were he or his parent’s other finite substances that authored his being then he would not have wants or doubts because he would have bestowed upon himself every perfection imaginable to a finite being. Therefore, God exists because Descartes could not have thought of God because he is a finite substance thus the idea of God must have come from an infinite substance.

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

“The minute we have taken the backward step to an intangible view of our whole system of beliefs, proof, and rationalization, and seen that it works only, in spite of its pretensions, by taking the world mainly for granted, we are not in a place to contrast all these forms with an alternative reality. We cannot shed our normal responses, and if we could it would leave us with no means of conceiving a reality of any kind (Nagel, 1971; p. 723).”

After giving his first proof for the existence of God Descartes concludes by mentioning that this proof is not always self-evident. When he is absorbed in the world of sensory illusions it is not quite obvious to him that God’s existence can be derived from the idea of God. So to further cement God’s existence Descartes begins his second proof by posing the question of whether he could exist (a thinking thing that possesses the idea of an infinite and perfect god) if God itself did not exist.

God is a being too great to be contained as an understanding within the human mind without existing in reality, which would make him less great to humanity. Anselm argues this when he presents his version of the ontological argument, which addresses the existence of god. He claims, “when th[e] [atheist] hears my words ‘something than which nothing greater cn be thought’ he understands what he hears. And what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand [i.e., judge] it to exist. For that a thing is in the understanding is distinct from understanding that [this] thing exists” (Anselm 554-555). In order to be a great being, Anselm argues that if a person understands god within their thoughts, then god must exist in reality if he can exist within the mind. To support this, Anselm provides one example of the argument, using a painter as the object of it. He explains that when a painter pictures what he is going to paint, he has the understanding of his painting, although it has not

Descartes’s attempt to prove the existence of God begins with the argument that he has the clear and distinct idea of God as the “most perfect being and that there must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause in the effect of that cause” (40). Therefore, this idea of God can’t be from himself, but its cause must be God. So God exists. In what follows I’ll explain these terms and why the premises seemed true to him.

St. Anselm begins his argument by saying that God is the one that grant the ability of understanding to faith, in which an understanding insofar that has been very beneficial to him. He added that an understanding which he believes God is in fact what he believes to be. Thus, with that understanding leads to the rationale of the notion of something greater to be thought exist is an unconscionable. Anselm’s argument stresses the perspectives which to purport by presenting to those who deny the existence of God as the greatest being is self-contradictory. Therefore, the point of his argument, it is essentially crucial to realized that such a being exist. The “ontological argument by St. Anselm “is the most compelling and fascinating argument

Descartes reasoning shows that as part of his a posteriori claim, God’s existence depends on our idea of God as a perfect being. However, he writes that “From this I knew I was a substance whose whole essence or nature is solely to think, and which does not require any place, or depend on any material thing, in order to exist” (Descartes, Discourse on the Method, page 36). As per Descartes, the existence of his mind is partially based on the notion that it’s (his minds) existence is independent of any other being. His causal proof of God, however, depends entirely on the human mind and its ideas of what God is. Aside from these flaws in his reasoning, Descartes also mistakenly links his proofs together, attempting to propagate them and champion their creditability.

Descartes makes an attempt to prove God’s existence throughout his third meditation. In his first premise he states that he has an idea of an infinitely perfect being. He uses the Principle of Sufficient reason to advance his argument; it states that everything must have a reason or cause. This put forth his second premise; that the idea of god must have a

Given the above arguments one can begin to understand the nature of the God Descartes is endeavoring to prove. For Descartes, God is infinite and perfect existence. God is “eternal, immutable, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and [the creator of] everything else". (Descartes 20) Not only does God possess this nature but it is necessary that He does so. If God is not infinite or perfect God could not exist as these attributes are essential to God's existence. Furthermore, if God is not the ultimate creator the innate idea of God we experience would cease to be innate but adventitious (externally caused) or imaginative (caused by the mind) which is again impossible given its content. Given these qualities one can draw a connection to the

In the Third Meditation, Descartes forms a proof for the existence of God. He begins by laying down a foundation for what he claims to know and then offers an explanation for why he previously accepted various ideas but is no longer certain of them. Before he arrives at the concept of God, Descartes categorizes ideas and the possible sources that they originate from. He then distinguishes between the varying degrees of reality that an idea can possess, as well as the cause of an idea. Descartes proceeds to investigate the idea of an infinite being, or God, and how he came to acquire such an idea with more objective reality than he himself has. By ruling out the possibility of this idea being invented or adventitious, Descartes concludes

Descartes believes that God's existence is clear and distinct. God exists because the thought of God is derived from a "completely clear and distinct" idea from within his being (which he concedes is a thinking being). Having come from distinct thoughts, the idea of God can therefore never be considered a falsity. From this very distinct idea of God comes everything else that one grasps distinctly and clearly.

First, ideas originate from causes; the latter must have as much or more formal reality as the objective reality of the idea. Second, Descartes has an idea about God, this idea has infinite objective reality because this idea, no matter what caused it has to have infinite formal reality; “because something can’t come from nothing, or the cause must have as much or more reality than the effect” (Descartes 31). Third, Descartes is finite and does not have infinite formal reality, therefore he cannot cause the idea of God because he, as a cause, would have less formal reality than the objective reality of what he produced, effect, which is the idea of God. Thus, God could have caused the idea of God in him, because only God has as much formal reality as the objective reality of his idea (Descartes 31), therefore, God