You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 4 (1004 words)
Complete Name Professor Course: Date of Submission: First, analyze and evaluate the two proofs of God’s existence. How are they different? Is one more convincing than the other? Why did Descartes think he needed two proofs? Do they do different work for him?…
Evidently, the two queries differ in the sense that one ought to be responded to by virtue of proving the existence of God while the second already holds the truth of God’s existence yet seeks resolution concerning how God’s qualities may or may not suit the act of deception. On this ground, it follows that the two proofs of God’s existence are necessarily different. To analyze how the synthesis of one proof is distinct from that of the other, in the process, one would be able to figure that besides God’s existence, the properties associated with the existing entity, being supreme and infinite in nature, must be utilized to affirm a congruous proposition that God cannot be a deceiver. According to Descartes’ ontological argument stating “The mere Idea of God, proves God’s existence” (Descartes’ First Proof, Med. III) -- God, being a concept, is sufficient proof in itself of His existence and this may be found to acquire strong support from the unshakeable truth “I think therefore I am” (Med. II) for with this conclusion is the knowledge of the fact that the rational capacity of an individual attests to his being and the natural ability to rationalize as such is not without value or consequence so that what is conceived exists as well. ...
Not exactly what you need?