Existence of God

René Descartes main goal in the Meditations is to establish that one exists and that a perfect God exists. However, he first argues that the idea that everything perceived around one could be false because the senses are sometimes deceiving. In the first Meditation, Descartes introduces skepticism and brings forth a method of doubt in which he evaluates his beliefs, and questions whether they are true or false and why they should be doubted. He presents various hypothesis that prove there is reason

The proofs of God’s existence offered follow a logical sequence with the aim to convince the reader to believe. However, these proofs, at some stage, all offer a presupposition which flaws the author’s argument. These presuppositions are harmful because if the assumption can be disproven then the remainder of the argument collapses. Thus, the proofs of God’s existence are not compelling because they are all based on flawed presuppositions. Anselm of Bec’s proof of God relies heavily on many presuppositions

The Reductio Argument, which was the Third Way Argument from Possibility and Necessity, is the best argument in contrast to the other four arguments in order to prove the existence of God. The argument proposes ten statements that disagree with the validity of an assumption, which can be summarized as such: in order for things or beings to exist, they have to be contingent. Contingent in the manner that there has been a previous being or situation thus allowing for a new being to exist, or a new

the third meditation, Descartes sets out to prove that God exists, is the reason for existence, is the reason for people having thought, and that he is not a deceiving God. First, Descartes defines God as being: “a supreme God – eternal, infinite, unchangeable, omniscient, omnipotent and the creator of everything that exists except for himself” (paragraph 15). Descartes goes through a long process to prove that the fact that man thinks of God alone means that he exists; the simple explanation being

Being an Athiest,” by H.J. McClosky, was very interesting. McClosky basically lets us know that as atheists they do not believe in God and why they do not believe in the God that theists do. According to McCloskey, there are three proofs for a theist to believe in God; the cosmological, teleological, and the argument from design. McCloskey refers to the arguments for God as proofs, and he suggests that we cannot establish a case with these, so called, proofs. After watching the PointeCast presentation

"If God Exists, then Why"¦":Understanding and Countering Certain "Proofs" of God's Non-Existence Introduction The question of whether or not God exists is central to many modes of understanding and systems of knowledge, both theological and philosophical, and the implications of the answer to this question are quite far reaching indeed. The very fabric of reality depends upon the knowledge that this question seeks to obtain, and the manner in which an investigation of God's existence (or non-existence)

their ideas in the late 13th Century when he wrote, “The Five Ways.” Since then the Cosmological Argument has become one of the most widely accepted and criticized arguments for the existence of God. My objective in this paper is to explain why the Cosmological Argument is a reasonable argument for the existence of God, the importance of understanding that it is an inductive a posteriori argument, and defend my position against common opposing arguments. To begin, as living human beings on the planet

In Person and Beings, Clarke argues God’s existence as a sufficient, infinite reality. Clarke begins his argument by reflecting on the causative nature of existence and the first step of his argument hypothesizes that “given any conditioned being, there must exist at least one absolutely unconditioned, or self-sufficient being (Clarke 215).” Every living thing is conditioned, in that it requires a cause. We are all radically conditioned to exist and we depend on other things to keep us that way.

being, or God. Even though Demea argues for the necessity of a creator, he does not clarify the source of God, implying that the alleged deity was the ultimate cause creating itself from nothing, which contradicts his own premise of causality and consequently resulting in an endless cycle.

true fact is that you have to believe them. I feel it is correct to claim that it fails due to the amount of criticising evidence against the theories for the existence of God. The main philosopher to criticise and object to the Teleogical Argument was David Hume. He looked at every point towards the existence towards a creator and designer and then thought logically about the condemnation and came up with rebuttals. He realised that