Paley's Argument For The Existence Of God
God has always been an abstract subject for me. Throughout the entirety of my life I have never had a clear understanding of what God is, or even if there is a God. However, even though I never had a clear understanding of God or how we could even know of him, Descartes and Paley suggest that we can know God and that he is within our understanding. Throughout the readings they describe and argue how we can now the existence of God and the attributes that are associated with him. However, David Hume would refute these claims saying, through his dialogues that we cannot know the attributes or even for that matter the existence. During this paper I will analyze Descartes and Paley’s arguments in comparison with David Hume’s arguments that
…show more content…
He argues that something cannot begin from nothing, like a rock it is made from things with all the proper components. The same is true for man and all existence; he could not be from nothing, but rather from the first efficient cause, which is God. By this argument Descartes is saying that since we have a certain idea of infinity, then that means that this idea must have been caused by a thing that exists in reality. Since we have this idea Descartes thinks that it could not have arisen through humans because we are finite, therefore the existence of God is true because we have this idea and it could not have arisen from us. Hume would argue that this is indeed untrue his character Cleanthes states that nothing that is distinctively conceivable implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive to exist, we can also conceive to not exist. Therefore there is no being whose existence implies a contradiction. In this Cleanthes says that nothing can surely exist, for example, if I see a chair I can also conceive that chair not to exist even though it does, because I can do this denying the existence of something does not imply a contradiction. Therefore, to say that God is not the efficient cause because he does not exist is a valid claim. Furthermore Philo states that the universe could be ordered in a manner similar to mathematics, which does not
He argues that something cannot begin from nothing, like a rock it is made from things with all the proper components. The same is true for man and all existence; he could not be from nothing, but rather from the first efficient cause, which is God. By this argument Descartes is saying that since we have a certain idea of infinity, then that means that this idea must have been caused by a thing that exists in reality. Since we have this idea Descartes thinks that it could not have arisen through humans because we are finite, therefore the existence of God is true because we have this idea and it could not have arisen from us. Hume would argue that this is indeed untrue his character Cleanthes states that nothing that is distinctively conceivable implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive to exist, we can also conceive to not exist. Therefore there is no being whose existence implies a contradiction. In this Cleanthes says that nothing can surely exist, for example, if I see a chair I can also conceive that chair not to exist even though it does, because I can do this denying the existence of something does not imply a contradiction. Therefore, to say that God is not the efficient cause because he does not exist is a valid claim. Furthermore Philo states that the universe could be ordered in a manner similar to mathematics, which does not