Or will I be accused of plagiarism since I didn't make it up? Oh and if you talk about atoms you better cite John Dalton, and if you say that cells have a nucleus don't forget to say that Robert Brown figured that out and NOT you. Cite everything even common knowledge, even common sense!! vvSo if I tell a joke, do I have to site it? Or will I be accused of plagiarism since I didn't make it up?
Varying Arguments for the Existence of God Many philosophers and theologians have provided varying arguments for the existence of God. These arguments are either a priori, understood independent of worldly experience and observation (Ontological Argument), or a posteriori, dependent on experience and based on observations of how the world is (Cosmological and Teleological Arguments). This paper will focus on the Cosmological Argument, and show that its underlying principle, the Principle of Sufficient Reason, fails to establish it as a sound argument for the existence of God. To accomplish this, I will, first, define the Cosmological Argument and the Principle of Sufficient Reason; then explain the argument, and how it is based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason; and finally, show that there is not enough evidence to prove that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is true, which in turn leads to the flaw in the Cosmological Argument. First, what are the Cosmological Argument and the Principle of Sufficient Reason?
It has been suggested by some philosophers that the existence of the universe is merely a “brute fact,” or that it is possible for the existence of something to be explained by nothing. Also one can easily reject the first premise due to the fallacy of composition. Just because all the parts of something exhibit a certain quality doesn’t mean that the whole of something exhibits that same quality. So although the Contingency Argument seems stronger than the Causal Argument, it still fails to prove anything because some of the premises can be rationally denied.
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.
As the argument is reliant on this assumption, it falls apart as the deductions made are based on this whole concept. To counter this, the philosopher Malcolm disagrees with Kant by saying that existence can be a property of a necessary being such as God. The same concept can’t be applied to contingent beings, such as coins, because they are imperfect beings. I don’t believe this to be valid however, as we don’t know for certain anything about God’s properties. 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”.
Parmenides concludes that if something does not exist, then its non-existence cannot allow for it to come into being or perishing, because if it comes to be, then formally, it previously did not exist. Since we cannot know anything about things that do not exist, coming... ... middle of paper ... ...rmenidean doctrine that substances are uncreated and eternal; however, by positing that there are four creative and two controlling substances, he dubiously maintains that combination and separation, through their endless cycles bring about a whole. If Empedocles were to follow the Parmenidean notion of being absolutely, then his separation and combination would never take place, because each element would be continuously attracted and negated, so that no combination could ever take place. The Pluralists want to reconcile everything that they perceive through their senses with the Parmenidean idea of an uncreated, eternal, unchanging whole. The problem of such a task lies in the fact that Parmenides’ notion of being goes against everything that our sense experience tells us.
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.
In retrospect, there is no way to determine whether or not the idea of God is invented or adventitious; however, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the idea of God is innate. In the fourth meditation, Descartes contradicts himself once again by saying "nothing can cause itself to exist, so God cannot cause himself to exist” (Descartes, 4th Mediation). According to Descartes, something must be the cause for God and once again, we would go down an infinite regression. Due to this contradiction, one can refute all of the options that Descartes presents as the reasons for his existence; leaving the argument without a finishing clause which proves the existence of God. After looking at both of Descartes arguments for the existence of God and finding gaps and contradictions for each, we are left with no reason provided by Descartes for the existence of God.
And what of these laws then? How can we be... ... middle of paper ... ...f those “sensations” each and every time. At the end of his Enquiry, Hume leaves us with the tools of relations of ideas and matters of fact, but these however can not explain the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, the nature of matter and other such questions. To these, Hume denies that rationalism could ever posit an answer because that answer would be founded in nothing more than reason. If we are left then in a state of immobility where we can only trust or base our knowledge on that which is empirical, how are we to wake up in the morning without feeling are lost?
In religion the concept of life after death is discussed in great detail. In monotheistic religions, in particular the Christian theology, death is a place where the soul, the eternal spirit that is part of you, transcends or descends to depending on if you go to heaven or hell. The argument calls for a form of immortality of the soul and a lack of immortality of the body—the soul lives forever, the body perishes. John Hick in his excerpt from “Immortality and Resurrection” refutes the ideology that the spirit and body are dichotomous, one being everlasting and the other limited. In his view on the immortality of the human psyche, he claims that the spirit and body are connected; they are not too distinct entities.