Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ontological argument quiz
Anselm's argument for god's existence essay
St. anselm's ontological argument
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Another refuting claim would be of a ancient thinker known as Rene Descartes who stated “Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum” translated as “I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I am”. A great scenario where this argument would be considered false would be in a imaginary character such as Sherlock Holmes as he is a fictional character who thinks and doubts but he does not exist. In the same way we could think that we exist because we have thoughts but we could be just a computer program playing out its
For this disputation, I had the pleasure of arguing against the topic of be it resolved that you can convince a non-believer to affirm the existence of God using philosophical arguments. As the opposing side, Sarah and I counter argued the following: the argument from motion, the ontological argument, Pascal’s Wager, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument. The argument from motion argues that it is only possible to experience that which exists, and people experience God, therefore God must exist; however it can be counter argued that since faith cannot be demonstrated or experienced, as it is unseen, God cannot exist.
However, Descartes is indeed certain of the fact that he is a thinking being, and that he exists. As a result of this argument, Descartes makes a conclusion that the things he perceives clearly and distinctly cannot be false, and are therefore true (Blanchette). This clear and distinct perception is an important component to the argument that Descartes makes in his fifth meditation for the existence of God. This paper explains Descartes ' proof of God 's existence from Descartes ' fifth meditation, Pierre Gassendi 's objection to this proof, and then offers the paper 's author 's opinion on both the proof and objection.
Karen Armstrong and Robert Thurman wrote their essays, “Homo religiosus” and “Wisdom”, respectively, describing two words, “being” and “void”. These words, although have opposite meanings, describe the same spiritual experience that come about through different means. By definition, “being” is a kind of fullness or completeness of existence and “void” is emptiness or a negation of existence. Armstrong believes that “being” is the equivalent of the Buddhist’s “Nirvana” while Thurman believes that “void” is the equivalent of the Buddhist’s “Nirvana”. Although these terms seem to be opposite in the literal sense of defining them, they lead to the same outcome: not being at the center of one’s own universe.
The definition of God is the greatest being. A thought of something that exists is greater than a thought of something that does not exist. That means if God is just a thought that does not exist, there must be a being greater than Him. This would contradict the definition of God. Therefore, God must exist so that the definition would be true.
In Saint Thomas Aquinas argument the second way, Aquinas argues for the existence of God, making use of efficient causes and premises to help us conclude that God exists. In the following words I would argue that Saint Thomas Aquinas’s argument formulated in the second way leads to a valid argument, which concludes that there must be a first cause and that God exists. Aquinas second way is an argument that God is the first cause and he is essential to everything on earth because nothing would have the power to fuel its self without the intermediate cause which is God. An example is a painter using a paintbrush to paint as he moves his hand, paint is applied on the wall but if he stops, the paint would not fly from the brush to the wall, stopping
If god doesn’t cause my existence, then I am caused by myself, my parents or a lesser cause. There is no infinite regression, so I my existence isn’t caused by my parents or lesser cause, Therefore, God is the cause of my existence (AD 51). As well I am not God, If I created
In this paper, I will deliver a reconstruction of Descartes’ Cogito Argument and my reasoning to validate it as indubitable. I will do so by justifying my interpretations through valid arguments and claim, by showcasing examples with reasoning. Rene Descartes is a French Philosopher of the 17th century, who formulated the philosophical Cogito argument by the name of ‘cogito ergo sum,’ also known as “I think, therefore, I am.” Rene was a skeptic philosopher amongst many scholastic philosophers of his time. To interpret his cogito argument as indubitable and whether it could serve as a foundational belief, he took a skeptical approach towards the relations between thoughts and existence.
In the sixth meditation, Descartes postulates that there exists a fundamental difference in the natures of both mind and body which necessitates that they be considered as separate and distinct entities, rather than one stemming from the other or vice versa. This essay will endeavour to provide a critical objection to Descartes’ conception of the nature of mind and body and will then further commit to elucidating a suitably Cartesian-esque response to the same objection. (Descartes,1641) In the sixth meditation Descartes approaches this point of dualism between mind and matter, which would become a famous axiom in his body of philosophical work, in numerous ways. To wit Descartes postulates that he has clear and distinct perceptions of both
Through our understanding we can come to learn that the existence of conscious self is not enough to support the claim of a thinking thing, and that he solely exists on the basis of thinking and being a thing being. And so the mediators claim that “ I exist as a thinking thing,” is correct as it can be supported with evidence throughout our
Our lived existence is associated to passion, decision, and action. None of which can be exhausted by any thought. He believes that an existence can only be interpenetrated with thought.
If man knows his own being, then man knows that bare nothing cannot produce a being 3) Therefore, man knows that bare nothing cannot produce a being (from 1 and 2) 4) If bare nothing cannot produce a being, then there has been an eternal being 5) Therefore, there is an eternal (infinite) being
He believes from qualities we get ideas from the mind which ideas are object. He says that what is real with the statement “To be, is to be perceived.” Which mean to an object to be real than exist for individual must perceived by the mind of the
St. Anselm and Descartes are known for presenting the first ontological arguments on the existence of God. The word ontological is a compound word derived from ‘ont’ which means exists or being and ‘–ology’ which means the study of. Even though Anselm and Descartes’ arguments differ slightly, they both stem from the same reasoning. Unlike the other two arguments on God’s existence (teleological and cosmological), the ontological argument does not seek to use any empirical evidence but rather concentrates on pure reason. The rationale behind this school of thought
Therefore, if I were to conjure up an idea of an infinite being, I would be inventing something with more reality than me. This is nonsensical, I cannot possibly create something that goes beyond my finitude. Thus, if I could not have possibly conceived of an infinite god, yet I still have this idea of one, it necessarily follows that this god has put the idea of itself into me. This marks the end of the “Third Meditation”, where, in short, Descartes uses cosmological arguments to prove the existence of god.