In chapter 7 of his book, Lynch addresses various opposing viewpoints that are centered on the idea that truth is a type of fiction and does not really exist. He immediately goes on to defend the existence of truth with claims that philosophers seldom deny the existence of truth and that the question “What is truth?” is simply pointless because truth “has no nature that needs explaining.” The Nietzchean view of truth is based on the belief that truth is not deeply normative or good. Lynch points out the flaw of this theory in that it hints at the unsatisfying logic “truth is worth caring about therefore the pursuit of truth must be blind relative to other things.” As a counterclaim, Lynch believes that people must balance the pursuit of one
Incompatibilists debate the opposite and say free will does not coexist with the idea of determinism and they are incompatible. The claim they address is that there is no possibility that there is true determinism and free will. Robert Kane analyzes both sides in his attempt to show the differences between each side and to draw possible conclusions to the question and existence of free will. The compatibilist and incompatiblists agree that there are other worlds where there is free will but disagree on the fact that determinism is true. Compatibilism is the idea that there is a connection between ones free will and the actions we take.
W.T. Stace uses his paper “The Refutation of Realism” to argue that we have no good reason to believe in the existence of objects unperceived by any finite mind. His argument reflects one of exhaustion, in which he claims that the only two ways to argue for the existence of these unperceived objects, is either by inductive or deductive methods. Because both of these fail, we have no way to provide good reason for the belief that objects exist while unperceived. In this paper I will explain why Stace’s argument fails, more specifically his approach to inductive reasoning.
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.
Aquinas believes, as humans we don’t have the intellect to prove God’s existence Overall, this shows that the ontological argument doesn’t prove God’s existence, as existence can’t be a predicate, so any deductions made from this assumption can’t form valid conclusion... ... middle of paper ... ...esses his suspicion of the argument as it “lacks a single piece of data from the real world”. He also says that the argument is infantile because of this. Again, it comes back to the fact that not everyone will define God the same way, which is an intrinsic flaw in the argument. Overall, I think that the fact it is an a priori argument neither helps to prove or disprove the argument, as it can prove the argument to believers, for example, but not atheists. In conclusion, the ontological argument can’t prove God’s existence, as it is founded on the basis that you already believe in God.
I find it illogical because just because there still isn’t enough evidence, doesn’t mean its wrong, its just not considered right or wrong. We don’t have enough proof to make it erroneous. And we can’t assume anything until there are enough indications to make it otherwise. In the essay “The ethics of belief” ... ... middle of paper ... ... their idea of right and wrong is just an opinion. And opinions are dismissal.
First is the idea that human beings are not honest enough to be able to have possibly witnessed a miracle. Next is that human beings want to believe in the supernatural, and that desire allows us to believe in things that could never happen, simply because it would be wonderful and fantastical if that miracle actually did occur. Thirdly, the people who usually report sightings of a miracle are those who are uncivilized, or unsophisticated, so they ... ... middle of paper ... ...e contradicts himself when it comes to his explanations against the rationalisation of miracles. He insists that miracles do not actually happen, because they go against the laws of nature. But also, there is no probability of them actually occurring and that we, as human beings, put too much faith in miracles, which is wrong.
Hume believes that accepting testimony about miracles is unreasonable because there is no imperative reason to believe in miracles. Our knowledge of miracles comes from the testimony of others, and since this a second hand experience one should not regard it as reputable compared to ones own experiences. () Hume concludes that beliefs should be proportioned to evidence. ()Thus in cases where all the evidence marks a distinct outcome one can be positive that that conclusion is correct and when there is evidence for and against a certain conclusion, one can only regard it wither a certain degree of probability, until one outweighs the other. Miracles by definition are singular events, that contradict the uniform laws of nature.
Davidson's "The Folly of Trying to Define Truth" Davidson’s argument against the possibility of defining truth draws upon the work of Tarski. However, Tarski’s assumption that the semantic conception of truth holds only for formal languages which are not semantically closed is not as plausible as it seems to be since it can be shown that this would result in the impossibility of formulating a theory of truth, because the epistemological presuppositions of formal semantics undermine any theory of representation of reality in which our cognitions can be true or false representations. Yet Davidson concludes that "there cannot be a definition of ‘For all languages L, and all sentences s in L, s is true in L if and only if . . .
Ayer’s ideas of emotivism contradict moral realism because his ideas lead toward no moral truths. He speaks that emotions with moral ideas are meaningless, therefore by adding any emotion to a moral statement would make it meaningless, according to Ayer. Moral realism has ties with emotions too it, not all moral statements involve emotions and feelings, but Ayer’s ideas definitely refute the ideas of moral