Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Argument on the existence of God
Argument on the existence of God
Existence of god discussion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Argument on the existence of God
The unbiased pursuit of truth is agnosticism. It is committed to honesty and challenges dishonesty. An agnostic considers that human mind is any primary resource and challenging authority, which is the sole means of extracting maximum results from this resource. However, challenging in this context does not signify disrespecting (Wall, 2011).
Agnosticism is a complex philosophy. It is described as a way of life accompanied with certain inferences towards religion. Agnosticism refers to a philosophical view that is not known, whether God exists or not. William L. Rowe explained agnosticism as a view that human wisdom is not sufficient to provide considerable rational grounds for justifying the stance that God exists or the view that God is nowhere
…show more content…
This is because there is a direct association between belief and knowledge. In other words, beliefs held by an individual or beliefs that are known, also specify that one believes in the same. Thomas Huxley proposed the term agnosticism, which states that accurate knowledge is not unattainable. The knowledge that is unproven at present might be proved with the help of discoveries later (Wall, 2011). It is not fortunate that many people now believe that agnosticism is a belief demonstrating that the knowledge of God is unattainable when this is not the real meaning of this term. It is difficult to state that knowledge about God cannot be acquired, particularly in the light of latest advancements in particle accelerators and microbiology (Wall, 2011).
In the context of agnosticism, Bruce Lee, a great philosopher, did not hold the belief that a person should be indoctrinated in respect of a defined fighting style. Treating a particular style as gospel resulted in minds crystallization, implicitly making change burdensome. It is essential for a human being to be open to change and have potential to
…show more content…
Furthermore, it is essential for human beings to keep their minds unobstructed of crystallization and be flexible in the dynamic world. Agnosticism is a method and not faith (Wall, 2011).
The essence of agnosticism embraces strict application of only one principle, that is, great antiquity. This principle signifies that one must try all things and quickly hold, which is good (Wall, 2011). Agnosticism is related to procuring knowledge, critical thinking, and free thinking. Critical thinking is a crucial life skill that one must have as it enables a person to adopt a formal and a structured approach while solving any problem.
Critical thinking in the domain of agnosticism, which is defined as the thinking mode of any problem, content or subject, wherein the thinker enhances the quality of thinking by skillfully taking responsibility of the structures intrinsic for thinking and incorporating intellectual standards on the same (Hunter,
... being. We also used to believe that the universe was Geocentric, when Copernicus suggested that this was wrong and our universe was heliocentric, the church ostracized him. Science is capable of explaining all things it is just a matter of time before all questions that we believe to be unanswerable find an answer through scientific research. The Large Hadron Collider is even researching the big bang. We will eventually answer all of our questions through science. C.S Lewis also had a great outlook on life, his belief in God led him onto success and happiness. Perhaps a belief religion is not believing in a God, but finding a belief that will make your life happy and answer the questions that you need. I personally believe that Freud and his path of science is correct, conversely if a person wishes to believe in a God or religion I can see their point of view.
In conclusion, Gnosticism has been proven to be a very difficult heresy to define and explain because it has so many different meanings and teachings that one definition doesn’t really define what Gnosticism really is. There have been many people that have been recognized for there works on Gnosticism and making it a remarkable heresy that has definitely made a name for itself. There have also been people that have been acknowledged for making Gnosticism disappear and not have it be considered a religion anymore. Overall Gnosticism is a unique heresy that has a very different view about God and how he has created the world that we live in today.
The Canadian philosopher J.L. Schellenberg has recently put forward an argument for atheism based on the idea that God is supposed to be perfectly loving and so would not permit people to be deprived of awareness of his existence. If such a deity were to exist, then, he would do something to reveal his existence clearly to people, thereby causing them to become theists. Thus, the fact that there are so many non-theists in the world becomes good reason to deny the existence of God conceived of in the given way. I first raise objections to Schellenberg’s formulation of the argument and then suggest some improvements. My main improvement is to include among the divine attributes the property of strongly desiring humanity’s love. Since to love God requires at least believing that he exists, if God were to exist, he must want widespread theistic belief. The fact that so many people lack such belief becomes a good argument for atheism with respect to God conceived of in the given way. Some objections to this line of reasoning are considered, in particular the claim that God refrains from revealing himself to people in order to avoid interfering with their free will or to avoid eliciting inappropriate responses from them or some other (unknown) purpose. An attempt is made to refute each of these objections.
I will divide this paper in a few key points. The first is what Gnosticism is. The second is the
Even though Averroes’ assertion that philosophy is an obligation from all who study religion seems to support innovative ideas, closer analysis shows the opposite. Considering all the limits set upon the encouragement of producing personal opinions, the role of philosophy is practically redundant. Opinions are only accepted from scholars, and even then, when they are in line with what is considered to be “right”.
Theology is an intentionally reflective endeavor. Every day we reflect upon the real, vital, and true experience of the benevolent God that exists. We as humans tend to be social beings, and being so we communicate our beliefs with one another in order to validate ourselves. Furthermore atheism has many forms, three of the most popular atheistic beliefs include: scientific atheism, humanistic atheism and the most popular one being protest atheism. Scientific atheism is the idea that science is the answer for everything and god is not existent. The humanistic approach states that society is self-sufficient; therefore God is not needed for survival. Therefore how could he exist? The position that I will argue in this paper is the pessimistic idea of protest atheism.
Truth, what is truth? This question itself has a thousand answers, no person can ever be sure of what truth is rather, truth can be justified, it can checked for reliability with strong evidences and logic. If the evidence proves to be accurate then it can be established that a certain answer is the truth. However, have we ever tried to think about what intrigues us to seek the truth? To think about a question and set foot firmly on the path of knowledge. Definitely it has! That was the very cause itself which is why this world has witnessed some of the greatest philosophers like Aristotle, Plato and Socrates etc. along with the school of thought. The ability to think and reason is one of the greatest ability humans have, it is what distinguishes us from the animals. It is what gives us free will, the ability to control our own outcomes. However, it is that ability to ‘think’ itself which has caused men to rebel with the myths and statements established about the unseen and natural forces since the beginning of time. It gave rise to questions such as: Do aliens exist? Is there a world of the unseen? Life after Death and the most popular question since the beginning of times, Does God exists? And the answer is ‘yes’. Here is how I will justify my stance.
Beliefs unlike our knowledge of things have the quality of either being true or false. Like with all information of things, persons, places or objects we either know of their existence or we do not. There does not exist a state of mind where there exists truth or falsehood associated with something that is known by the existence of that thing. We could be wrong about the knowledge we have of things but that knowledge could not be deceptive in nature, you either know of the existence of a thing or you do not. This means that while belief can be true or false knowledge of things does not have this property. Conversely we know that beliefs can both be true or false as many people can have widely varying opinions on the same subject that contradict
The existence of God is quite controversial issue. God has different names in the world, and a lot of people, strongly believe in his existence. While, on the other hand, there are also people who don’t believe in his existence. In their discussion entitled “Does God Exist?” William Lane Craig, who is the supporter of the idea of existence of God, debates with Austin Dacey, who is an atheist, on the idea of existence of God. They provide the strong arguments and their debates are quite interesting, and innovative (not similar to those arguments, we usually read about in book). These are the fresh views on the question of existence and non-existence of God.
A feature of Gnosticism is, “a dualistic way of looking at God, humanity, and the world, involving a radical reinterpretation of earlier traditions (Birger, p. 12).” This means that Gnostics views things having two sides. God is believed to be a super- transcendent supreme God who is alien to the world, and a lower deity who is responsible for creating and governing the world in which we live. (Birger, p. 12). Humans have split personalities. The true human ...
Thus when one takes agnosticism into account when trying to conquer ignorant, inconsistency will arise. Agnosticism that deteriorates into an “I am ignorant about religion” statement is not agnosticism at all because it has already made a decision, that there can be no decision to the subject and that such a decision is not important. A statement like this is not agnostic, but assured of its ignorance and thus not agnosticism at all. A atheist says he absolutely knows there is no God. Such a proclamation is outside his fixed understanding, and can not be convincingly confirmed. Agnostics admits their own finiteness and ignorance. Ignorance and agnosticism are two entirely different things. For instance, I don't know much about quantum physics, but that does not make me agnostic about quantum physics; it makes me ignorant.
In this essay I discuss why there is proof that there is a supernatural being known as God, who has created everything we know and experience.
Theism is the belief in the existence God. Theistic are people who affirm the existence of God. This is divided into two. The first is A Priori. These are arguments that are held before sensory experience. Under the A Priori concept, are the Ontological and Moral Argument. St. Anselm is a one of the known proponents in the Ontological Argument. He once said, “Believe in order to understand.” He explains that faith and belief play a very vital role in affirming the existence of God. He claims God is the greatest thinkable being both in mind and reality. The second division of Theism is A Posteriori. These are arguments that are held af...
Whether someone's belief is true is not a prerequisite for belief. On the other hand, if something is actually known, then it categorically cannot be false. For example, if a person believes that a bridge is safe enough to support him, and attempts to cross it, but the bridge then collapses under his weight, it could be said that he believed that the bridge was safe but that his belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. By contrast, if the bridge actually supported his weight, then he might say that he had believed that the bridge was safe, whereas now, after proving it to himself, he knows it was
In my Theory of Knowledge class, I learned that belief and truth can be very contrasting ideas. In my opinion, I can believe something that may not necessarily be true. However, there can also be truth that is impossible for me to believe. Belief is a mental state in which someone is confident in the existence of something, but may not necessarily have objective proof to support their claim. Truth is objective and public; it is eternal and unchanging without biast. People can believe in something different and can also all believe in the same idea. The overlap between truth and belief creates knowledge; therefore, an acquisition of knowledge will bring us further to what we believe to be a ‘truth’. Knowledge can be acquired in several ways, such as using emotion, reason and sense perception. These ways of knowing affect how we perceive reality, and help us create our beliefs.