Meursault says no. The magistrate states that his own life would be meaningless if he doubted the existence of God, and concludes that Meursault has an irrevocably hardened soul. Meursault reasserts his denial of God’s existence when the chaplain visits him: “I didn’t believe in God.” As Meursault does not believe in God, he cannot find out any meaning in his existence. This atheistic view leads him to live existentia... ... middle of paper ... ...ists, Meursault has his own values which are incompatible to the values of the world. Values that would be very significant for most people, such as love for someone or suffering at a parent’s death, do not matter to him, at least not on a sentimental level.
Furthermore, we know there is an abyss to be filled, because even the greatest doubts of the sceptics cannot deny that we exist since questioning whether we think is self-affirmative. We do exist; however, most individuals do so only realising the world of the finite. It is the realisation of the difference between the infinite and the finite - omniscience - that allows us to realise that the finite is nothing in relation to the infinite. Since God and truth are both nothingness in the finite, there is no way of describing them finitely; however, understanding the inability to distinguish these two concepts is precisely how one will understand them.
However, Evans and Manis suggest there are beings in this world that are unaware of how they came to exist. These beings are often contingent on another being. Th... ... middle of paper ... ...were made to always do what is right then free will would truly not exist. It is evident that McCloskey’s arguments in an attempt to disprove the existence of God lacks evidence. He disputes the existence of God based on a lack of undisputable evidence, but he provides no undisputable evidence to counter this existence.
Which they use the word to describe a search for answers in an answerless world. However, we are creatures who crave meaning but are abandoned in a world full of meaninglessness. So, if you remove god and the idea that the world was created for a reason and it doesn’t exist for a reason then there are no absolutes to abide by (i.e. no justice, fairness, order, or
In conclusion, McCloskey infers that theist do not have a firm, foundational case to present to non-believers because the existence of God should not exist in the midst of evil. In addition, McCloskey claims that the “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being (CITE THIS),” which is a necessary, existing being. This approach is ... ... middle of paper ... ...ead, they deny the purpose of life. Likewise, “the only way that most people who deny purpose in life live happily is either by making up some purpose or by not carrying their view to its logical conclusions” (Craig, 2008, p. 82). A relevant example concerns death.
In his book The Hitchhiker's Guide from the Galaxy, he writes that God refuses to prove that he exists because "proof denies faith and without faith [God] is nothing." As God's people rely on Him, he relies on the people for faith. Modern society is relentlessly struggling to define and understand, therefore eliminating all need for faith. "God is dead" does not necessarily mean that the being no longer exists, but that society's faith in Him has died. God exists, but is powerless to assist those who have no faith.
"As Dostoevsky once said, "If God did not exist, then everything would be permitted. "(pg 22) Sartre claims this to be the existentialist starting point. This is the reason that Sartre talks about anguish, because "one cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself." It must necessarily follow that man is to be forlorn; he can't find anything to depend upon either internally or externally. He therefore lacks excuses.
The rationale behind Job’s reduction in agency is much less clear and is never addressed by God, who was an accessory to the whole affair by knowingly allowing it to take place. The comforters suggest possible explanations, unhidden sin or a lesson from God, but neither suggestions are confirmed or denied. The reason God accepted Satan’s wager remains a playground for speculation. When the plans of the gods, or God, are against them, neither Odysseus nor Job have control over the direction their lives take. They can only contemplate why it is happening and wait for it to end.
Kant argues that humans can never have knowledge of something in metaphysics, because it is not something he or anyone can prove in space, time or causation. He instead considers that God is a possibility but not a necessity for certainty, for he cannot be certain of God’s existence. I completely agree with Kant on these two points, for they would be seemingly impossible to prove wrong. However, if more research was done into all three researchers I would be able to more thoroughly explain their positions on God, and exactly how they justify or dismiss the idea that God is important to reality. Especially on Locke my interview with Rich Dettmer was not clear enough to understand exactly how he proves God’s existence.
He can't make 1+1=3; he can't create a rock that He is not able to lift; correspondingly, he can't give an individual unrestrained choice and settle on choices for them in the meantime. Accordingly, the greater good of human freedom is a product of God's benevolence and the evil that exists is a consequence of humans making poor use of that freedom.. This barrier determines the coherent issue of underhanded by permitting God to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. This resistance likewise places the fault of wickedness and enduring at the hands of people. Nonetheless, the inquiry still stays concerning if God was fit to make the universe without the likelihood of pain and agony.