Existence

Religion (1779), Hume has the character of Demea present an Ontological Argument for the existence of God. Demea attempts to argue that God’s existence can be proven wholly a priori and logically, rather than through the a posteriori design argument. A priori arguments say that if the reasoning is valid then the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, which Demea argues is the case when it comes to the existence of god. The following essay will discuss Demea 's standing, Cleanthes’ responses and

insist there is no evidence for the existence of God while maintaining religious faith is fundamentally irrational. This paper will examine the Kalām Cosmological Argument (KCA), demonstrating that it offers strong evidence for the existence of God, thereby providing a rational foundation for the Christian faith. Background The cosmological argument is, “a family of arguments that seek to demonstrate the existence of a Sufficient Reason or First Cause of the existence of the cosmos.” Historians trace

The Mystery of God's Existence The mystery of God's existence has been a crucial element of many religious studies and traditions. Who is God? What is God? Where is God? To effectively discuss the existence of God, it is necessary to illustrate the notion of faith. People of faith believe that God does exist, and that relationship with God gives meaning to their lives. Others who are skeptical point to God as an obsolete hope of an ignorant human race. People today live in a world distinguished

One argument for the existence of God that can be accused of ‘begging the question’ is the teleological, or design, argument. The teleological argument states that there is evidence of design in the world, and so the universe must have been designed by an intelligent being. For example, beauty exists in nature through things such as landscapes, however beauty is superfluous so should not exist unless it was designed by a designer who wishes us to experience joy, such as an omnibenevolent God. The

no way God would allow that to happen. In his second mediation, he explains the nature of the human mind and how it is better than the body. Descartes states that it’s impossible to doubt that God exists because it would mean the doubt your own existence. He then clarifies that he is a “thinking” thing, which then becomes his only valid statements as the previous statements were contradicting each other. In other words, I think, therefore I am. Descartes then approaches the physical aspects of beings

by St. Anselm, suppose we imagine an object or a being which is greater than anything what we can imagine, and we think that that being is only in our concepts, i.e., it does not present in reality, if all of sudden, a being we imagined comes in existence in our real life, that is the greatest thing that can happen in the world. But already we have imagined that nothing can be greater than the being we have imagined, so it contradicts our assumption that the being we imagined is only restricted to

Traditional Western philosophical texts concerning the existence of God (often from Christian philosophers) do not address the nature of God. There are many assumptions that are taken for granted and not discussed further. If we can ponder the existence of god then why not the mechanics? Some of the ideas I will explore are: why is God assumed to be some kind of being? Why is there a pronoun used in reference, usually a man's? Why is god assumed to be a creator of the universe? Why is the question

In Descartes’ Meditation on First Philosophy, Descartes makes several points for the existence of God. His proof for existence of God is also related to his theory of knowledge. The relation of God and his theory of knowledge (mathematics) exist because both are of the same type of nature. These points will be discussed in this essay, as well as an objection to his proof for the existence of God in that his arguments are circular in nature. Descartes raises the argument for universal doubt, for he

principle of perfection which he uses to prove the existence of God is unsound. I will do this by first examining what is meant by the term ‘more reality’. After this, I will discuss the ideas surrounding ‘perfection’ and how Descartes derives a perfect God from a malevolent deceiver. I will conclude that Descartes’ use of perfection to aid God’s existence is implausible. To deduce whether Descartes’ argument is successful in proving the existence of God, we must first consider what Descartes meant

God’s existence cannot be proved nor disproved, but this is an attempt to refute the existence of this all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being through an analysis of arguments and theories that try to prove or insinuate His reality. To embark, Pascal’s Wager attempts to show non-believers that “it is in one’s best interest to believe in God” through a cost-benefit analysis. It examines the consequences of believing or not believing in God if he does or does not exist. It states: “If one believes