Philosophy and the existence of a supreme being...

In my last politics lecture, my lecturer, Chris Horrie has asked us to write both an a priori argument and an a poteriori (empirical) argment. But what to argue about?...I know, the exisitance of GOD!

There are two conflicting arguments for the existence of God: Descartes' ontological (or a prori) argument, which arises from clear and distinct ideas, and St Thomas Aquinas' design argument.

Descartes argument is fascinating, and also seems slightly crazy. The main points of his argument are:
1. I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, ie. with all pefections
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea
of perfection.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Obviously this is the simplified version, but still you get the idea.

So if I were to have an idea of a supremely perfect island, with all perfections, it is fair to say that it's existance follows from the concept of perfection (as Descartes said)...so I guess my perfect island exists right? So where the hell am I going to find an island that has an unlimited supply of alcohol, a nightclub that never closes, with performing monkeys serving drinks and loads of hot guys? I have a feeling that no such island exists...much to my disappointment! This was exactly the argument that Gaunilo used in objection to Descartes' ontoligical argument.

People that use a priori arguments, as Horrie said in our lecture, are very hard to prove wrong because their main argument is: " I think it, therefore it's true".

The design argument (or teleogical argument) is a posteriori (empirical), meaning 'from direct experience'. In our lecture Chris Horrie said that religion is a concept rejected by empirical arguments. However, this argument from St Thomas Aquinas is used to prove to existence of God. An analogy of the argument was given by William Paley (1743 - 1805). It is the watchmakers argument and it follows: If you found a watch in a field , you would logically conclude that the watch had been designed rather than a product of random formation.

The full argument for the existence of God is:
1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design.
2. The universe resembles human artifacts.
3. Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design.
4. But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts.
5. Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.

This argument seems to me to be more creditable than the a priori argument from Decartes. However, I wouldn't call myself an empiricalist because after having studied philosophy at A Level, I have found that some empirical arguments sound like absolute nonsense and so can rationalist arguments, as I have shown with the argument for the existence of God.

All that aside, I don't actually believe in God. So, I don't have an idea of sumpreme being with all perfections. Without perfection there is no existence. God does not exist.