Respond to this thread by Tuesday for participation credit! Note: you aren’t required to respond to the prompts below. Feel free to speak your mind on any topic covered in class or in the readings. These prompts are just meant to stimulate discussion.
Prompts and Questions:
- We went over three different proofs of God’s existence in class. Are these arguments valid? Are they sound?
- Is Descartes’ solution to the mind/body problem satisfying? Why or why not?
- Is Descartes right to claim that I know my own thoughts more intimately than anything else? Is this really an indubitable foundation for knowledge?
- Is the will free? Does this affect our freedom?
- Is the Argument from Design a strong argument? Is it better than Descartes’ arguments?
Kimberly Koch | 08-Feb-07 at 10:39 pm | Permalink
Is the will free?
The problem of free will is whether or not we have control over our own actions and decisions. Locke thought you could be free without having free will. Sartre thought that even the prisoner was free because he could choose his will and how to understand himself. If God has all perfections and existence is a perfection, and God exists, then he would have some omnipotent divinity that could make our choices for us or at least know our choices before we make them. If we believe that our choices are not our own, then we could use that as an excuse when we make bad decisions. Society forces us to be responsible for our actions, though, so I guess whether our decisions are ours or not won’t really matter because we will still experience the repercussions of “free will”.
Sam Mowry | 09-Feb-07 at 9:09 am | Permalink
Argument from design
I don’t think that the argument design logically works. What we said in class was: humans create machines and the world is like a giant machine, therefore there must be a giant creator of some kind. However, to be the strongest argument possible, there has to be the smallest change between the human and the Giant Creator. If we’re trying to say that the world is giant machine ultimately comparable to a pocket watch (or computer, or whatever), then we need the Giant Creator to be just as close to a human as the world is to a computer. That’s pretty close considering the Giant Creator is also supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent, and necessarily would need the omnipotence to have created the world in the first place. Now there’s an uneasy give-and-take between making then argument as accurate as possible and representing the Giant Creator as well as possible, and I don’t think you can do both.
Andrea Fish | 09-Feb-07 at 12:35 pm | Permalink
Waking Life
I really enjoyed the screening for this week, but I can’t say its a movie for everyone. I have sat alone and with close friends for long hours contemplating the universe and what our role in it is. This movie was excellent because it brought together many different ideas, some more radical or absurb than others. One lady mentioned that in her twenties she felt like she was searching for all the answers and felt confident at the time that they would come, but they never really did. That gave me a whole new perspective as did many of the other testiments in the movie. Bravo!
Brandon Wilkins | 10-Feb-07 at 8:58 pm | Permalink
We went over three different proofs of God’s existence in class. Are these arguments valid? Are they sound?
St. Anselm’s proof of God is composed of three steps as I understand; 1) God either was self-created, or doesn’t exist. I agree with this statement because God wouldn’t exist for any reason and would not have been created by anything else. 2) God is positively perfect. Now here is where I have some problems following the proof. A proof should show evidence, as I see it, to make me believe what is being proven. Saying God is positively perfect, is one of two things; an assumption about what God is (and therefore will need to be proven that he is perfect), or is how we define him. Assuming what God is may be right, or it may be wrong. And because of this I don’t think that this proof would be a sound argument. If saying God is positively perfect is how we define him, then this statement may not be accurate because humans are not perfect, and only God is. Then the only way we could know that God could exist (the next part of the proof) is if God says so. Also, doesn’t it seem that we are proposing the idea of God. And from this we have no proof, except for this speculation that St. Anselm is providing. Lastly, 3) It is possible God exists. I agree with this because it leaves room for doubt, saying that he may or may not exist. Because of this, I don’t think the proof is valid or sound.
Chris Paolinetti | 11-Feb-07 at 5:28 pm | Permalink
Proof of God’s existence
I can agree with the first statement, “God is positively perfect,” because that’s basically the defining quality of God - but to say that “existence is a perfection” doesn’t make sense - I exist, yet I’m FAR from perfect. Also, take the United States - it exists, it’s great, but it’s still definitely not perfect - poverty, crime, and other imperfections still exist. Saying that “existence is a perfection” is fundamentally flawed, and one can’t construct a proof upon it.
Daniel Estrada | 11-Feb-07 at 6:39 pm | Permalink
Brandon: Good comment, but I have a small correction with possibly big implications.
Anselm’s argument starts with premise: God either exists necessarily of its own accord, or it is impossible for God to exist. God doesn’t just happen to exist as a matter of chance or as the effect of some other cause.
This is important because premise 3, which you agree with, states that it is possible that God exists. If our options from premise 1 are that God either exists necessarily or is impossible, then the possibility of God’s existence from premise three proves that God necessarily exists.
Remember, an argument is valid if the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the truth of the premises. In other words, if premise 1, 2, and 3 were all true, then we would be logically committed to the conclusion that God exists.
You are absolutely right in your analysis of premise 2. What your analysis shows is that if God were less than perfect, then we couldn’t be certain of his existence, at least by this argument. The truth of the conclusion rests on the truth of all three premises.
So you may be right to question the soundness of the argument, but on this revised version, do you still think the argument is invalid?
Daniel Estrada | 11-Feb-07 at 6:44 pm | Permalink
Chris: I think you are misunderstanding the premise. Existence doesn’t make something perfect in every way, so yes you exist and yes you are far from perfect.
What the premise states is that if two things are equal in every way, but only differ in the respect that one of the things exists, then that one thing is slightly more perfect than the other. In other words, existence is one kind of perfection. You are more perfect than your identical, non-existent twin brother, because you actually exist.
Now if God has ALL perfections, and an existing God would be more perfect than a God that doesn’t exist, then God must necessarily exist. At least, thats how the argument goes. Does that make sense?
Jeremy Mcguire | 11-Feb-07 at 9:09 pm | Permalink
proofs on God
During the last few classes professor Estrada should us a few proofs that God exists a couple from Descartes and one from St. Anselm. The problem I have with these proofs is that they explain the ‘why’ behind God. Is there is no explanation of Gods behavior, for instance in none of these proofs does tell us why God would go to all this trouble to create us and what purpose would we serve to him. I understand that at this time there was no scientific evidence to show how the earth was created besides God, but if they cant explains Gods purpose then I believe you have to wonder even if God exists.
William Barrett | 11-Feb-07 at 10:04 pm | Permalink
“Is Descartes’ solution to the mind/body problem satisfying? Why or why not?”
So in the mind-body dualism, Descartes says the mind and body are separate and he wants to bridge this gap. Consciousness must be distinct from the brain; consciousness does not depend on mechanics of the physical world. This belief is related to his rationalist view in which there are things we can know without sensory experiences, but Descartes wants a theory of interaction. Descartes’ theory of physical things affecting mental things and mental things affecting physical things is satisfying in most situations. For example, with pain, we may get hurt or injured in the physical world and this will affect us consciously or mentally according to the consciousness definition of being how things seem, or the “what it’s like” sensation. It is like the nerve endings firing to our brain when we feel pain. We can break a bone and know what it is like to break a bone then which could also involve experience in his theory of interaction. I do not believe in parallelism, that there is no interaction, in the example that “when you want vanilla ice cream, the physical world just happens to work where you get vanilla ice cream” because there is interaction there in which the mind affects the physical aspect of your body in that your hunger or appetite causes you, physically, to go to get ice cream from a store or wherever you can get it. On another issue, of God putting images in our heads, I am unsure of what to think exactly because there can be so many factors and possibilities about why images just occur in our heads sometimes. With the causal principle, it is possible, but God did not necessarily have to put the idea in our heads of him because people could have been thinking since we are not perfect, what is perfect, who is perfect, and then the idea of God could have been created. With this, people didn’t even have to know what perfect was, they could have based it on everything they couldn’t do, be, say, want, make, etc.
Erin Murphy | 11-Feb-07 at 10:15 pm | Permalink
“Is the Argument from Design a strong argument? Is it better than Descartes’ arguments?”
Well, first of all, the design argument definitely a lot better than Descartes’ argument.
Descartes argument goes like this:
God is all-perfect.
Existence is a perfection.
God must exist.
But in order to say that God is all-perfect, you have to assume that God exists in the first place. So in terms of logic, Descartes’ argument falls flat.
I don’t think the Design theory is that bad of an idea. Comparing God creating the universe to us creating watches and such is a little presumptuous, but…
It seems to me that the biggest argument against the design theory is evolution. Here’s how I see it.
We all know about evolution. Certain mutated genes that could increase your chance of surviving until reproduction get passed on to generation after generation.
But what if biology didn’t work that way?
In the normal world, a bird might develop a mutated gene giving them a color that camouflages them from predators, and the helpful gene spreads.
What if we lived in a world where such mutations couldn’t occur?
What if genes *could* change that way, but the reproductive system was set up so that such traits couldn’t be passed on?
Evolution is a terrific system. It ensures that organisms can change to adapt to their environment, it increases complexity, and makes each generation better than before.
Is evolution any less of a miracle than if God had designed everything outright?
Angela Kinsella | 11-Feb-07 at 10:18 pm | Permalink
From Meditation five of Descartes, he proves God’s existence by first saying he is all-perfect. He goes on to say that existence is a perfection and therefore God exists. This argument is valid because if the first two premises are true, then there is no way the conclusion is false. If there was a God that was not all-perfect He would not exist compared to a perfect God. I am not totally sure how to tell if this argument is sound because I do not know whether God is actually perfect. I could just say that God’s perfection is not questionable and that it is a definite truth, making Descartes’ proof both valid and sound.
Amanda Bleatman | 12-Feb-07 at 2:02 am | Permalink
Proofs of God
So the questions everyone is searching for is how did God come to exist and how did we come from this? I think all of these proofs of God are crap. First of all, if there is a God, how do we even know anything about him to begin with? All our information is from man made interpretations. How can one assume that God is perfect? If you do, there is the first fundamental flaw right in your argument. Same thing for St. Anselm’s proof that God decided to exist on his own accord or he doesn’t exist at all. How can anyone assume this? Because we idolize this character and it makes sense that he has all perfect characteristics? If anything is true about God, it would be that he might exist. There is no reason to believe anything else.
Amanda Bleatman | 12-Feb-07 at 2:07 am | Permalink
I would just like to add a fun tidbit. I know we haven’t talked about Cyborgs yet, but I was watching the Terminator the other day and this quote sort of struck me as something interesting. ‘Listen. Understand. That Terminator is out there. I can’t be reasoned with, it can’t be bargained with….it doesn’t feel pity of remorse or fear…and it absolutely will not stop. Ever. Until you are dead.’ Just wondering if anybody is reminded of someone they know. (This in particular reminds me of my mother’s boyfriend! (Just thought you should know))
Kerry Phelan | 12-Feb-07 at 11:34 am | Permalink
We went over three different proofs of God’s existence in class. Are these arguments valid? Are they sound?
Descartes says that God is all-perfect and that existence is perfection so he concludes that God must exist. He comes to this realization because he thinks that unreal things cannot cause thoughts/ideas and only something perfect itself can cause the idea of God. I agree with this theory to some extent. In a way it makes sense to me. It is just an on-going circle and everything will always refer back to one another. This topic can be very confusing and controversial, but I think that Descartes does his best to explain his reasoning. Using the Cartesian Circle helped me to understand his reasoning. However, it is hard to know that something exists without ever experiencing it. Yes, some claim to have witnessed his “miracles” but no one has ever witnessed God himself. Then again that refers back to our senses, which we were supposed to have gotten rid of. The entire idea is confusing because we are not sure if there is one real answer, but I think until then Descartes’ theory seems to be sound and plausible.
Annie Werly | 12-Feb-07 at 4:23 pm | Permalink
Waking Life
This is one of my favorite movies and since being in this class, it has acquired a bit more meaning for me. The main character strives to differentiate between reality and dreaming, which creates a lot of mystery in his life. It sparks questions- are we able to control our dreams? How are they designed? This relates to Descartes: “I now see a light, I hear a noise, I feel heat. These things are false, since I am asleep. Yet I certainly do seem to see, hear, and feel warmth. This cannot be false” (20). Unlike the main character, Descartes can distinguish his waking life from his dreams. This sparks another question: how is one able to distinguish between dreams and reality? And what implications do dreams have- how much truth is revealed in one’s dreams? Descartes states: “Thus what I thought I had seen with my eyes, I actually grasped solely with the faculty of judgment, which is in my mind” (22); therefore, the mind is more powerful in sculpting reality than the senses- but don’t the senses gather the information that comprises our dreams? Overall, Waking Life is a great film and causes one to question the significance of dreams, much like Descartes.
Ashley Graham | 12-Feb-07 at 4:37 pm | Permalink
I do not believe that it is possible to define free will. Is free will the ability to think for yourself? Because if free will is defined only by thinking for yourself, then don’t animals have free will. They think for themselves, whether or not they are hungry, if they want to go to sleep. Is free will the ability to move yourself and your body? To go where you want, when you want? If this is the case then animals and humans have free will. The only things which don’t are ones which are enclosed by others, be it an animal in a cage or a prisoner in a cell. Free will is subject to interpretation, and I do not think that a formal definition of free will will ever satisfy everyone.
Jeffery Villalobos | 12-Feb-07 at 6:14 pm | Permalink
free will
n.
1)The ability or discretion to choose;
2)The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free%20will).
I agree with Ashley that there will never be a perfect definition on what free will really is as it is open to interpretation. We can gain a general understanding of what free will is by choosing a definition to derive conclusions about what free will is and what it means from that definition.
For example, I looked up free will online for some definitions and found the above. Here are some conclusions which i have derived from those definitions.
I believe that humans are the only creatures that have true free will. Yes, many other animals can choose where to move, what to hunt, where to sleep, etc., but humans are the only creatures that have an understanding of the implications of their choices (free will). Humans have the free will to chose to wear a conservative outfit to church versus a promiscuous one. Humans have the mental capacity to realize what their choices can cause. Animals cannot understand that through their free will (choice) of what will happen when they hunt and kill their prey.
Animals “free will” is a cause and effect principle. They are hungry there fore they eat. They are tired therefore they sleep. The same can be said about humans, but we know if we choose to sleep right now, we are losing time to do other activities. We know if we are tired in class and choose to sleep at that moment, we are losing out on learning the presented material. Humans are the only creatures that have real free will because we understand the consequences of our actions.
Brian Horn | 12-Feb-07 at 7:14 pm | Permalink
I think the Argument of God by design makes much more sense than Descartes model that God must exist because of our clear and distinct ideas from our Cognito. Comparing the workings of the planet to that of a watch, with a creater who designed the watch, just as a creator who designed the world. It’s like if you think about it when asked where did it all come from, some respond that it came from evolution. Well, where did that come from? The big bang? Well, where did that come from. It seems like logically there must have been some designer at the beginning of everything, where ever you deside that beginning really is.
Rutvi Shah | 12-Feb-07 at 7:58 pm | Permalink
Waking Life
I must say this was one of the most unusual movies I have ever seen. Many of the parts were completely absurd and did not connect with the rest of the movie. At the same time, there were a few good points that were raised by the character. Throughout the movie, the character was trying to find the significance behind his dreams or simply figuring out if his life thus far was just a dream. The movie also questioned reincarnation and our existence in general. I cannot say that I completely agree with the idea of reincarnation but one of the characters mentioned how the population keeps growing so idea of reincarnation of previous species does not make sense. This made me think about our existance in a different perspective. The movie definately made some clever points but not enough for me to watch it again.
Ryan Marshall | 12-Feb-07 at 8:23 pm | Permalink
On the question of whether free will is really free will.
From one view, even a prisoner is free because he has the freedom of control over himself. On the other, the prisoners decisions, for the most part, are planned out for him. He does not have ‘freedom’ as it is defined by most individuals. I believe that in any situation, a person has some sort of free will. While they are in the cell, or where ever they are, the prisoner can make choices that affect his or her life. They can choose whether or not to eat, or how much to eat. They can choose who they talk to and what they do in their cells and so on and so forth. So, in a sense, i think, in some form or another, an individual always has free will and that will is truly free, it is not decided for them.
Chris Paolinetti | 12-Feb-07 at 9:12 pm | Permalink
Proof of God’s existence (Revised)
Now that I properly understand what Descartes was saying, I would say that the proof is valid, albeit incomplete. There is an inherent weakness in proofs of this format, (not in the proofs’ validity, but in the way we as humans interpret them) as made clear by a common mathematical curiosity. In a mathematical proof, I will prove that 2=1:
Let A = B
A^2 = AB Multiply both sides by A
A^2 − B^2 = AB − B^2 Subtract B^2 from both sides
(A − B)(A + B) = B(A − B) Factor both sides
A + B = B Divide each side by (A - B)
B + B = B Observe that A = B
2B=B Combine like terms
2 = 1 Divide by B
This proof is obviously wrong - Since A=B, dividing by (A - B) would mean dividing by zero. However, each step in itself is correct, and therefore the proof seems to be correct at first glance.
We shouldn’t try to prove God’s existence, because we aren’t capable of it. Mortal beings such as us trying to prove God’s existence is similar to a dog trying to understand calculus. However, there is proof of God’s existence in the world around us - the chance of single-celled organisms evolving into sentient humans is worse than the chance of an explosion in a junkyard yielding an intact 747.
Ryan Riordan | 12-Feb-07 at 10:31 pm | Permalink
when descartes says that no one else his own thoughts more than he himself does, he is in a way going against his proof that God exists. afterall, he is the one that gave us the example that no one but God could instill the idea of God in his head. if that was his reasoning regarding the existence of God, wouldn’t a God who coul control the input of an idea into someone’s brain also be able to know a person’s thoughts just as well? if God can input a thought into someone’s head than i believe that he could know that person’s thoughts very well. going back to descartes proof though, i don’t think that his, nor the other proof by St. Anselm, are enough to make someone believe. the ontological proof given is somewhat convincing in that no one wants to say that God is impossible because that would just be ignorant to say that he is not possible at all. i myself am a catholic so i do believe in God, but were i to rely on looking at either of these proofs as a means for convincing myself, or others, that God in fact exists i feel that it would be very hard to do so.
Amanda Jakstas | 12-Feb-07 at 11:48 pm | Permalink
Locke believes that is it impossible to have free will. The will is predetermined: I didn’t choose to like chocolate, I just do. However, I’m free to act on it and decide to eat the chocolate. Sartre, however, believes that you can always choose how to take a situation. I would say that I have to agree more with Sartre’s view on free will. Our wants and desires change so frequently throughout the course of our lives. There are some wants and desires that we don’t think twice about and just automatically want them. However, there are those wants and desires that are forced. I can learn to want something I never wanted before. I believe that freedom of will exists. I have the ability to choose my desires and preferences.
Stehpanie Prather | 13-Feb-07 at 1:11 am | Permalink
I am personally torn as to whether God truly exists. It’s such a troubling subject for philosophers because it’s an all-or-nothing situation, you either believe there is a God or you don’t. Deciding to believe that their is no god and we are all the product of evolutionary biology working in random ways in accordance to environment seems so empty and hopeless. It’s no wonder that a majority of the human race believes in some kind of God, because without that hope what’s the point? It can be hard to search for beauty and purpose in a godless world, and for that reason, to protect ourselves from feeling worthless maybe our adaptive minds make us believe there is something more out their for us. As intellectually driven creatures we would be completely worthless and demotivated if it weren’t from the hope we derive from the idea of God.
Or on the other hand maybe there is a God who is perfect and created us in his perfect image. But I think that’s just wishful thinking.
Tariq Mohammed | 13-Feb-07 at 7:28 am | Permalink
Is free will today truly defined as being ‘free’? Well, I guess it depends on how one wishes to interpret it. Americans are lucky to have all the freedom that we do have. We can go wherever we want, eat whatever we want, etc.
But if one looks closer, is it really as good as it seems? The Patriot Act is a key example of how freedom can be taken away immediately without reason and justification. Ryan mentioned prisoners which is another good example. They can decide if they want to eat, workout or just stand around, etc. However, in the prison system their freedoms are severely restricted. Some would argue that they deserved it. So in short it depends on who you ask and how they interpret free will. There is no ’set in stone’ answer.
Krystal Kniep | 13-Feb-07 at 8:57 am | Permalink
I think Descartes proposal on how thoughts can be innate, or existing within us from birth, is a little abstract and hard to believe. Descartes believes his ideas of God are formed through this way. It is just a little unclear to have knowledge of certain things before you are even conscious of yourself. For example, if someone were to ask me where my ideas came from about a certain subject matter, I think I would get a puzzled look if I responded “I was born with them”. It is more feasible that all ideas come through perceiving things with our senses or being informed by them through others. Descartes seems to take the idea about God’s existence for granted. The purpose of his meditations is to find reason and certainty; however, his claim seems to derive from nothing. I think I need more.
Jennifer Crabill | 13-Feb-07 at 9:04 am | Permalink
Is the will free? Does this affect our freedom?
To determine if the will is free, you have to first decide if there is a clear separation between the mind and the body. Like we discussed in class, there is a problem with the existence of freedom if a separation between mind and body does not exist. The two responses we examined were Locke’s and Sartre’s. Locke believed it is impossible for man to have a free will. His belief is based upon the fact that your will is independent of your freedom of choice. Sartre believed man always has a free will. Because you always have a choice to choose how to deal with your specific situation, you always have a free will, according to him. As much as I would like to believe Sartre’s seemingly optimistic view of free will, Locke’s makes more sense to me. It seems as though Locke assumes a more mechanical understanding of the phrase—if you physically cannot escape from a jail cell, your free will is absent. Sartre, I believe, takes on a more mental understanding of free will—kind of like a “you can make me follow the rules but you cannot tell me what to think!” sort of mentality. I agree that everyone has a will, but the freedom of it varies depending on your situation.
Fernando Londono | 13-Feb-07 at 9:19 am | Permalink
The theories proposed of Gods existence all seem to have a general consensus, that God exists. The only theory I’m not eating off the plate of is the concept of design. I find it ludacris to try and compare the world to that of a pocket watch. Yeah it seems reasonable to believe that the world works like a machine therefore there must be a great intelligent designer. But to say that there is a great intelligent designer who ‘thinks’ like us is extremely hard to swallow. To say that our minds and God’s mind work similarly in some respect is like saying he just has a bigger brain. But does a bigger brain just allow you to create worlds with millions of peoples and animals just walking around. No one knows what its like to create a world in which everything systematically integrates to produce a ‘perfect’ design (perfection is in the eyes of the designer). I doubt that we could ever communicate with God, but i’m sure we would understand his existence when that time comes.
Erica Yuenger | 13-Feb-07 at 9:21 am | Permalink
Semantic Engines
I just wanted to comment on the part of the John Haugeland reading, Semantic Engines: An Introduction to Mind Design. The first column on page 14 really helped clear up the concepts of dualism and the problem of mind/body interaction for me. Before, I thought it was obvious that the mind and the body must interact, but the phrase in the reading that claims “the price of mind/body interaction is violation of the laws of physics” made me think twice about this matter. Now, in a sense, I am more confused about what I believe regarding this matter, but at the same time I understand the concept and consequences of mind/body interaction better.
I also thought the idea of the homunculus was very interesting. It reminds me of those cartoons where it zooms into someone’s head and there is like an office full of people directing thoughts and emotions. The reading says that this would partially explaing the rationality of our thought proccess, besides the fact that the homunculus would have to think somehow, and there’s no way to explain that without a never-ending chain of homunculus’s. I think, however, that the idea that a little person, or engine, or whatever, is inside our minds contolling our thoughts is a completely irrational idea.
Ashley Swarts | 13-Feb-07 at 7:45 pm | Permalink
The movie by David Cronenberg that Daniel posted on the site really made me think about pictures and videos. When we look at a picture, we are happy because we remember the good times that we were having when the picture was taken. However, the man in the video claims that this is actually depressing because the death of that moment is being recorded. Yes, it may have been a happy moment, but that specific moment is now dead and can never be revisited. I think it actually depends on how a person looks at it, like is the glass half full or half empty: are you going to be happy simply to have the happiness of that moment recorded which can remind you always of it, or are you going to be sad that that particular moment can never be experienced again and the picture will only remind you of this?
John Creger | 13-Feb-07 at 10:52 pm | Permalink
Giving proof for the existence of God makes me think a lot. Either God does exist or he doesn’t. If God does in fact exist, those who do not to believe in His existence do not validate his being- likewise those who do believe in his existence do not validate his being because God exist upon his own accord. So really, it’s a personal defense to claim for or against the existence of God on a surface level- trying to “convert” others one way or another. So I ask a personal question: what is there to lose/gain if there is no existence of God? And what is there to lose/gain if there God does exist? If you ask me, I will continue to promote this relational God I so highly speak of.
Adam Domanico | 01-Mar-07 at 9:27 pm | Permalink
I think that overall DesCartes did a good job at proving the existence of God but obviously it is a difficult task. I think his best argument is the ontological syllogism. His first premis being God is the only perfection and his second premis is the existence is a perfection; thus God must exist. This argument is good because it is both valid and sound.
However, I think it is bad that he claims to know his thoughts more than anyone else. Although destroying all of his previous beliefs in order to only know truth is a good strategy, I do not think it is a valid claim to say that he knows his thoughts better than anyone else. In addition, it is not very solid to build a theory on this shakey claim. As far as free will is concerned I just quickly wanted to add that it definately is given to us humans. Also, this free will is directly connected to freedom since a person cannot truely be free until he or she can make all decisions for him or herself.