An analysis and critique of the first argument Descartes presents to prove God's existence in the Third Meditation of his "Meditations on First Philosophy".
2,415 words (approx. 9.7 pages), 0 sources, 2002, $ 73.95
Abstract This paper critically analyzes Descartes attempt at proving Godexists in the Third Meditation of his "Meditations on First Philosophy". After thoroughly explaining how the argument unfolds in the original text, the writer offers two lines of objections that undercut his proof which focus on his claim that he has a "clear and distinct" idea of God and the relationship Descartes claims exists between the objective reality of an idea and the formal reality of the thing represented by that idea. (It also clearly defines all of these terms.)
From the Paper "In the Third Meditation of his Meditations on First Philosophy, Rene Descartes presents his first proof of God's existence by characterizing the nature of ideas, examining the relationship between causes and effects, and defining the relationships between ideas and the things or concepts they represent. He then applies these results to the clear and distinct idea of God he claims to have. Descartes systematically defines each of these components to build the premises for his argument in such a way that the conclusion that God exists immediately and obviously follows. As such, if one is going to deny that Descartes has irrefutably proved God's existence, one must find fault in at least one of these premises. This will be the strategy that I will employ in this paper. After laying out the premises of Descartes' first proof of God's existence and the justification he employs for each one, I will argue that his argument ultimately fails because he does not sufficient justify two of the most important premises. First, I will argue that he does not - and perhaps cannot - sufficiently prove that he really has a "clear and distinct" idea of a perfect God. Second, I will argue that he does not properly justify his claim that there is a direct relationship between the objective reality of an idea and the formal reality of the thing that causes the idea."
Abstract This paper supports Mackie's position that the traditional Judeo/Christian/Muslim God cannot possibly exist given the evidence of the existence of evil, since God is omnipotent, omniscient and most importantly, Good. The writer maintains that if God did exist and was as described, then evil could not possibly exist because God would do everything - could, in fact - to prevent it, yet evil abounds.
From the Paper "The question of whether or not God, in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic tradition, exists is as old as the religions themselves, and has been answered many times in many different ways. God is said to be omniscient and omnipotent, yet Evil still exists in the world. According to J.L. Mackie and other philosophers, this trilemma is irreconcilable, and therefore God must not exist. It is the writer's argument that Evil does exist, therefore God cannot exist if the statements regarding the power and knowledge of God are true. It is important to establish meanings of the words God and Evil for the purposes of this discussion. The definition of God given by the American Heritage Dictionary will suffice: "a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions"."
Abstract This is a teleological argument for God's existence. Cleanthes' argument for the existence of God is based on the assumption that the universe has an ordered arrangement. This is why Cleanthes attempts to present a case for order in the universe. In doing so, he argues for the existence of God. In his view, there is a design in the creation, and he believes that a certain amount of scientific thought was needed to create the universe.
This paper discusses the philosopher George Berkeley's concept of immaterialism, his subsequent argument for the existence of God, and the reasons why his argument cannot be accepted as being valid.
Abstract An intricate discussion of philosopher George Berkeley's concept of immaterialism and his subsequent argument for the necessary existence of a Supreme Being, or God. The author outlines and analyzes Berkeley's two major philosophical treatises, and the main arguments found in each are clearly defined and presented in a succinct, yet detailed manner. Philosophical ideas/concepts discussed include the "Likeness Principle" and the variability of sensory experience. The paper then presents Berkeley's argument for the existence of God, which builds upon the already established theory of immaterialism by discussing the distinction between absolute and relative existence.
From the Paper "Immaterialism, as defined by Berkeley, is the idea that it is impossible for any sensible qualities whatsoever to exist independent of a mind (Berkeley 1965, 5-6). This argument is brought forth succinctly and clearly in the Dialogues, in which Berkeley presents his case through the character of Philonous, and defends it against criticism by the character of Hylas. Although there are many aspects in both Principles and the Dialogues that contribute to the overall argument for immaterialism, for the purpose of this essay, only two of the strongest points will be discussed- the argument from variability and the likeness principle.
One of the key features of Berkeley's argument for immaterialism centers on the variability of one's sensory experiences in comparison to another?s. He notes that each individual perceives the world differently, whether in terms of smell, taste, sight, or touch. One of the ways in which this variability of sensory experiences is presented by Philonous to Hylas is during a discussion between the two concerning taste. Philonous points out that although a certain food may taste pleasant to one person, that same food may taste awful to another. "How could this be", Philonous asks Hylas, "if taste was something really inherent in the food"? (Berkeley 1998, [180]) There is only apparent taste, and this requires dependence on a mind. The same argument is also applied to smell, touch, sight, extension, motion, and solidity, and is reasoned to be just as effective. Perceptual variability occurs with these senses/qualities as well, and none of the apparent smells or colors seem to be any more real than any other ([68-78])."
Abstract This paper compares and contrasts the idea of God posited by Benedict Spinoza with that posited by Gottfried Leibniz. The paper points out that, according to Spinoza, Godexists necessarily from its divine nature, inhabiting the world as the world inhabits it. It claims that Leibniz saw the elegance of this utterly rational God, though he also espied a threat that he attempted to displace by defending the traditional anthropomorphic idea of God. Spinoza's God is beyond human, to which the human notions of 'good' and 'evil' do not apply. Leibniz saw in this God no freedom, no agency, and no morality by which man could live. The paper concludes that these two philosophers, arguably the most significant of their day, differed drastically in their views of God's role with regard to the world. While Spinoza's view of a non-human God appeals to humanity to find a liberal and democratic method by which to exist in the world, Leibniz's more traditional view of God involves the reliance upon faith and provides a perfect example upon which humanity must model itself.
From the Paper "While this eminently rational idea of God possesses an almost geometric elegance, the implications of such a view would greatly disturb Spinoza's contemporaries, Leibniz among them. Since all things follow necessarily from God's nature as substance, determined solely through itself, it follows that things could not be any other way than they are. "Things could not have been produced by God in any manner or in any order different from that which exists." This is an utter rejection of the supreme anthropomorphic father figure, who chooses between right and wrong and lays down laws by which humanity is judged. Good and bad are reduced to human notions relative to our limited experience of the world, completely irrelevant to a universe that functions from the necessary. Morality is seemingly abolished, and God seems too powerless to ever have created anything at all. In fact, freedom to Spinoza is the ability to be determined by nothing other than one's nature, which entails that only God is completely free as the one substance, and to choose to be anything but what he is would be absurd, as what he is, is perfection. "...God alone is a free cause. For God alone exists only from the necessity of his nature and acts from the necessity of his nature." The threat to the theocratic order is explicit here, for while Spinoza's God is necessarily perfect, he is not necessarily good. Following from necessity, what we term 'evil' is as much in God as what we call 'good'. This God is not based on relative human notions or longings: it follows purely from the necessity of reason. Spinoza maintains that he sees God as surely as he can see the truth of a geometric proof: "I know it in the same way that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles." The rejection of ultimate reward and punishment places the onus for morality squarely upon human shoulders; a yoke religion explicitly labors to remove because it is too heavy for most humans to bear and would lead to social chaos. Perhaps Spinoza had such in mind when he penned the last line of his Ethics: "...all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare."
A discussion on one of the most famous and debated arguments for the existence of God presented by an 11th century philosopher, theologian and church leader, Saint Anselm (1033-1109).
Abstract The following paper argues that the "ontological" argument for the existence of God is one of the weakest proofs for the existence of God. This paper describes the argument in some detail, analyzes its pros and cons and arrives at a logical conclusion.
From the Paper "Immanuel Kant, the famous 18th century philosopher objected to the ontological argument for the existence of God by arguing, ?being is not a real predicate.? In simpler words Kant argued that "existence" is not an attribute of an object like temperature, shape, size etc.; hence existence cannot be associated with the definition of an object. He has objected to attributing existence to the definition of an object because by doing so, we could prove anything exists by this method. Therefore the existence or non-existence of God cannot have anything to do with the definition of God.While focusing on the weaknesses of the Anselm's ontological proof we must not totally disregard the counter-arguments of its supporters. It would, therefore, be appropriate to mention that other philosophers have argued that there are senses in which "existence" is a predicate and Kant's argument that "existence is not a predicate" cannot be taken for granted."
Abstract The existence or non-existence of God forms a very central basis to the philosophies of some thinkers. This paper examines the philosophies of Descartes, Kant and Sartre in order to determine the significance and connection of belief in existence and non-existence of God with their respective philosophies.
From the Paper "The existence of God is central to the philosophies presented by Descartes in the sense that he can explain away the questions that do not have simple answers with the existence of God. As a result, he does not have to provide absolute logic for questions whose answers might be out of human grasp anyway; instead he focuses on the intangible proof to state that God does exist. By asserting this as an unchangeable truth, Descartes proceeds to convey his entire philosophy. Kant, however takes a slightly different route but the notion that assumption of God's existence is necessary, plays an important role in his philosophy as well. Since Kant was a devout moralist, going so far as to preach accommodating morality within political conduct, existence of God is a central necessity to his philosophies. Since Kant believed that morality ultimately leads to religion, his entire philosophy of morality would fall apart if God was left out of the equation. Hence it can be stated that existence of God was necessary to philosophies presented by Kant. In direct contrast to these two philosophers, Sartre claimed that there was no such being as God or that God did not exist. Again such a claim was central to Sartre's philosophies since he proceeded to develop them on this one notion. Sartre, known as an atheist existentialist, believed that God was dead; as a result he proceeded to form his philosophies using this basis. Sartre formed his philosophies regarding the human condition in a world that did not have an overseer who could have otherwise provided basis and structure for the world patterns. Therefore non-existence of God was crucial to the philosophies of Sartre because he attempted to form them keeping God out of the equation (Levine, 1998)."
Abstract A paper discussing the existence of God. The author uses the philosophical views of Descartes and Aquinas to prove that Godexists. The author discusses the works of the two philosophers.
From the Paper "God's existence can be proved both by reason or philosophy, and by faith or sacred doctrine. Both Aquinas and Descartes agree on the fact that God's existence can be proved, despite the fact that Aquinas believed that it is more of a question of faith, and Descartes believed that it is more important to use reasoning. Nevertheless, both agree with Aquinas? five ways that one can prove the existence of God. After all of this evidence, it is up to the individual to determine whether or not it is concrete evidence that should be followed. There should be enough evidence for each individual to determine for himself or herself about the existence of God and whether it is relevant in their lives."
Abstract This paper is an in-depth examination of people's belief or non-belief in God. The author attempts to show some of the areas of conflict between believers and non-believers, including does Godexist, do we have to believe in God to live a full life, and exactly how important is God in our every day life. The author looks at how different religions, authors, philosophers and theorists have attempted to answer these questions since the beginning of time.
From the Paper "The Intelligent Designer theory has gotten more sophisticated. Some of its proponents are Dr. Michael Behe- who proposed ordered creationism at the molecular level, and Philip E. Johnson, the self-styled leader of the Intelligence Designer movement. These theorists aver that the complexities of living beings, the mechanisms within even a single living cell, the balance of everything in nature, are unfathomable when looked at from a perspectives of evolutionists?the number of random permutations that had to occur before it all fell into place. In other words, the natural order of things we see around and within us had to have been pre-designed. The Intelligent Designer theory from a standpoint of astronomy is known as the ?anthropic principle.? Astronomer Sir Edward Hoyle and Mathematician Chandra Singh, both avowed atheists, calculated the odds that the world as we see it occurring by chance are 1 in 1040,000"truly, a number unfathomable even by astronomical standards. South African Astronomer David Block has observed that the Universe is expanding at the right rate and balance that sustains life on planet. There is an inbuilt design factor that cares for the universe"God the Intelligent Designer."
Abstract This paper argues that the proposition set up by J.L. Mackie whereby he claims to prove that an all-mighty, all-good God and the existence of evil are logically contradictory is itself in error. The paper uses the concept of a "process-relational" God, first proposed by Alfred North Whitehead, to disprove Mackie's argument. The paper also shows that this does not damage God's omnipotence any more than neo-Thomist arguments do.
Abstract While no argument for or against the existence of a higher power will successfully convince members of the other theological camp to its supposed truth, Descartes' "Third Meditation" remains a very skillful, well orchestrated defense of the author's beliefs. This paper points out that an exercise in logic, Descartes' argument for the existence of God is also an excellent example. It explains that the work progresses from the basic to the complex, uses analogies from the readers' experience, anticipates and addresses readers' possible objections and uses such classic methods as cause and effect, negative logic through absences and the need for absolutes.
From the Paper "The existence of a divine being, namely God, has challenged philosophers, writers, theologians, and other thinkers for millennia; often individuals have, after struggling with exhaustive arguments about a source of immaculate virtue or a prime mover, merely shrugged their shoulders and claimed that the best defense for believing in a higher power is 'personal faith.' Atheists have long rejoiced in this supposed inability to prove God's existence objectively and have often placed their belief in science, with its reliance on axioms, proofs, and purely empirical evidence. Yet how accurate is science? Medical knowledge of the seventeenth century, with its notions of humors and effluvia, has been largely disproved, much like the racially-based biological and genetic theories of the early twentieth century. In addition to being required to constantly undergo modification or rejection, scientific theories often rely on faith; for example, nuclear physics purports the existence of quarks, but no naked eye has ever seen one. While the debate between religion and science has become quite heated, especially since the eighteenth century Enlightenment, French philosopher Rene Descartes penned his Third Meditation in 1637, arguing very convincingly for the existence of God. Indeed, Descartes' argument, relying on notions of the source of inner ideas, cause and effect, and objective perfection, gives reason for theists to applaud and atheists to perhaps rethink their position on the God question."
Abstract This paper endeavours to pit Leibniz and Spinoza against each other ? with the existence of God as the arena and words such as "substance", "nature", "free will" and "perfection" personifying weapons of choice. How these weapons are wielded proves the essence of this debate as well as validates Leibniz's advantage over Spinoza.
From the Paper "Before demonstrating the superiority of Leibniz's arguments over Spinoza's theories, it is necessary to provide a summary of each player's platform. Leibniz believed that God and the universe were distinct from one another. With the influence of Pythagoras weighing heavily in his arguments, Leibniz deduced that "Perhaps only one thing is conceived independently, namely God himself" and also nothing, or absence of being. This can be made clear by a superb analogy . . . [Leibniz then proceeds to elaborate on Pythagoras? theory that numbers were the quintessential truths, and that the universe in its entirety was in accord with itself, and insists:] I shall not here go into the immense usefulness of this system; it would be enough to note how wonderfully all numbers are thus expressed by means of Unity and Nothing. But although there is no hope in this life of people being able to arrive at the secret ordering of things which would make it evident how everything arises from pure being and nothingness, yet it is enough for the analysis of ideas to be continued as far as is necessary for the demonstration of truths.? "
Tags:god, existence, philosophy, religion, universe, nature, free, will
Abstract This paper is an examination of Descartes book, "Meditations on First Philosophy." The author examines the steps that Descartes took in order to prove his hypothesis that God is a deceiver. He examines three different proofs and shows how Descartes comes to these realizations only after a careful and logical thought process in which he tears down and rebuilds everything that he believes in.
From the Paper "Now he bases the rest of his proof off of these three observations. Because he has been convinced that something comes from something, the idea he has of God had to have been created by something, either himself or something else. He then states that he is finite and imperfect, and thus he cannot have an idea of the infinite and perfect on his own. He, being finite and imperfect, is not as powerful as the thought he has of an infinite and perfect God. Therefore, because he is not powerful enough to create this idea, it must have come from some other source."
This is a personal essay examining and analyzing arguments about both the good and bad of today's morality, a value-system that is generally without God's influence.
Abstract This is an essay which discusses God and morality. It looks at how God is viewed by different people. The author disagrees that a lack in faith in God has contributed to the country's current moral fibre, and argues that while moral standards and looser values are in existance today, but they are a result of the influence of the mass media and dissolution of the nuclear family, and not because of absence of a God-based society.
From the Paper "The negative effects of the loss of God are just as crucial to understand in discussing God and morality. These have often been overlooked by those who welcome all things new and better at whatever cost. The fact that society has lost the perception of harmony and unity created by divine guidance means that it can be argued that there are no universal morals left in the world. The acceptability of certain acts that were considered immoral before bothers many of us, and the term "liberalization" is often used in society when we really mean that we are without common norms of behavior or values."
Abstract This paper explains that both Luther and Augustine agreed that every form of matter and every event is the product of God's creation and that that this was the fundamental example of God's grace - His love and favor towards man. The paper then goes on to explain how the two religious philosophers differed in their conception of free will and its relation to God's grace.
From the Paper "St. Augustine believed that because God's grace was good, then everything he created was also originally good. In denying the veracity of original sin, however, he came up against the problem of explaining why man commits sins. Plato once argued that man's evil came from ignorance, but Augustine disagreed. He believed instead that man's fundamental condition was one of freedom and will. Because man is free, he can choose to direct his attentions to God or to the objects of the material world. He can choose to sin or to repent and do good."
