The proof of Gods existence is not a cause and effect argument as it does not base its argument from natural world evidence. The ontological argument is stated in this way: God is a supreme being. Among of the features of greatness or perfection is presence. Hence, God exists. The fact that the thought of God has been conceived in humanity means that he must be existent (Descartes et al., 682). This ontological argument theory God’s presence was established by theologian and philosopher, Anselm in the twelfth-century. It is founded on Anselm’s announcement that God is a presence which nobody superior can be perceived.
The philosophical theory received a lot of controversies. Even all those that have a belief in God’s existence had to question the ontological proof of Gods existence. A modern Guanilo of Anselm claimed that an individual could visualize a perfect island, but this does not mean that there is the presence of a perfect island. Hence, most individuals challenge the idea that God’s necessity does not necessarily translate to God’s existence.
One of the publicized criticisms of the ontological argument is by Immanuel Kant. Kant contended against the argument because existence is the ideal of concepts and that whatever philosophies may contribute to a given theory. But he argues that presence is not a property of particulars. The criticisms brought forth cannot be entirely used to determine their veracity and remain as matters of dispute.
The Cosmological Argument
This argument bases its evidence on the presence of earth or world to the presence of life that conceived it into being and maintained the argument. It raises the idea that the world has an immeasurable past. This endless past stretches back into infinity. This past has equally scientifically and philosophical problems. These indicate a time when the universe came into existence whether as a cause of something or not. The cosmological argument uses the idea that the beginning of creation was not as a cause-effect to be unbearable. This awareness of events which are uncaused is illogical. Nothing comes from nothing. Something outside it, consequently, created the world (Descartes et al., 684). The cosmological argument endorses one component of Christianity, the canon of Creation.
Cosmological arguments try to answer the question ‘why does things exist’? Descartes doubts the existence of everything. He offers his cosmological argument by showing that he exists. Thus, the question remains what causes life. The Simple Cosmological Argument includes all things that happen therefore has a cause; the realm is existent henceforth the realm is existence as a cause. If the world has a reason of its presence, then the cause is God. Hence in conclusion, God exists (Levinas et al., 67). The cosmological argument is based on the simple objection arising from a question,” Does God have a reason for his presence?”
There are two forms of cosmological arguments as discussed here:
For Kalam, he argues that difference is drawn concerning God and the world. The difference is that the world began at a particular period. He asserts that all things have a beginning period. Hence, the kalam cosmological argument justifies that existence has a reason. The existence of God is uncaused. There is no start time for God. He is steady with this assertion (Descartes et al., 687). He does not show the difficulty met in the discussion of the reasonable astrophysical argument in his claim.
In the circumstance of the contingency argument, a difference is drawn between God and the world. The difference is that the existence of the creation is contingent. That shows that the world should not have come into existence. All things exist contingently; this is the basis of the contingency claims has a reason for its existence. The uncaused presence of God, whose existence is not dependent but rather essential, is reliable with this claimed error (Dekker and Sidney, 87). This argument does not bring out the difficulty met in the debate of the cosmological argument discussed.
Both systems of the cosmological argument evade the opposition presented above in a dissimilar way. Hence, they are different, and each of them promises individual assessment.
These two cases differ in that the ontological argument is not centered from natural world evidence and hence is not as a cause and effect. The cosmological arguments have evidence from the world. Hence, it is a cause and effect proof of Gods existence.
The Ontological Argument senses to establish God's existence by identifying God with the reference of the definite description "the greatest possible being." Since it is argued, there is an intrinsic inconsistency in the proposition the largest mortal being does not exist (Scott et al., 520). It shows that the biggest being exists which is God. Hence, God exists.
Cosmological Argument reasons to illustrate that there is a necessary being that explains the presence of all dependent beings. This is because of the principle of adequate reason; all optimistic facts require clarification.Descartes argues that human makes mistakes in the following ways: Given that God is not a deceiver, Descartes argues that error occurs only when we make judgments about insights that are not distinctive and clear. As long as we assent to distinct and clear perceptions, we cannot fall into error (Dekker and Sidney, 87).
Descartes' claim that God gave us an immeasurable will, leads him into a brief debate about the difficulties of free will. Since God is omnipotent, and the author of all that occurs, we are sure that all that happens is preordained by God. Descartes claims that we can reconcile our mistake by realizing that we do not comprehend everything about our creator (Descartes et al., 684). He seems to have no idea of reconciliation, but that does not mean that it is irreconcilable.
Descartes identifies two consistent contributors to human mistake: 1) the power to analyze the data that is in the intellect, and 2) the faculty of freedom or choice, which is will, that is in him. According to Descartes will versus intellect, the argument is mostly the primary source of human errors. He seems to be asserting that the intelligence puts forward plans, and will choose to either believe them to be false or believe them to be true (Bechara, et al., 14).
I do agree with Descartes arguments on sources of human mistakes. The majority of humanity believes primarily on what their senses perceive. Such persons accept as unquestionable anything that their senses convey to them. They fail to understand that their minds, at best, are imperfect instruments and that the mind is always employed in correcting the inaccurate reports of the senses (Puel, et al., 67).
All our experiences in the waking state or the dream state are the results of our senses and mind. They are also all the various products of the clairvoyant discernments. InFact, nothing can be perceived or seen without the mind. The brain controls the physical body, and the astral body make it the primary drive of everything we do or think.
Works cited
Bechara, Antoine, et al. "Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to prefrontal human cortex." Cognition 50.1 (1994): 7-15.
Dekker, Sidney. Ten questions about the human error: A new view of human factors and system safety. CRC Press, (2004): 87.
Descartes, René, and John Cottingham. René Descartes: Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies. Cambridge University Press, 2013: 678-723.
Levinas, Emmanuel, and Trans Richard A. Cohen. "Ethics and Infinity: Conversations with Philippe Nemo. 1982." Trans. Richard A. Cohen. Pittsburgh: Duquesne UP (1985): 23-87.
Puel, Anne, et al. "Chronic mucocutaneous candidiasis in humans with inborn errors of interleukin-17 immunity." Science 332.6025 (2011): 65-68.
Scott, David James Frederick. "Occasionalism and occasional causation in Descartes' Philosophy." Journal of the History of Philosophy 38.4 (2005): 503-528.
