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.
Peirce is concerned with what is practical, not the theoretical, because what is theoretical is not real to Peirce.” (Design) In conclusion, neither view on knowledge is improbable. Both philosophers believed that doubt and belief played a role in how we attain knowledge, the only difference being that whereas Descartes was looking for absolute certainty, Peirce saw it as is impossible, because there are only beliefs. We can never know absolutely what truth is, but we can believe something is true once we stop doubting it. I feel we see more of Peirce's ideas today because they do not need a foundation to be successful, whereas an atheist for example would have some problems with Descartes theories because they are based on the existence of God.
Truth is… unattainable at this point in time. Even when we know truth, such as in Hix v Hedden, we ignore it for what we believe to proper. To know truth we must fully abandon everything that society and are parents have showed to us, and this is outside the realm of possibility for 99.9% of people. They are not willing to explore, but they are willing continue to do the same thing that every one else has done. It is obvious that truth exists in the universe, but it is only for those who seek it out.
He leaves the only answer to be faith. I do not think there is any true way to prove religious matters. Though it may be easy at times to disprove them with the use of reason, it becomes difficult to do so with faith. It is impossible to use faith and reason in conjunction with eachother. Faith is a belief in something that does not have reason, so therefore if something can be proved with philosophical reasoning there would be no reason to have faith except for in the case where reason does not answer the question.
The Truth How can we define truth when we don’t even know the interpretations of what truth is? What I found very interesting was this quote "Half of a truth is not the Truth". I believe that when we tell the truth we never tell 100% of the truth. We might be embarrassed about the whole truth or maybe we just don’t want to tell how we handled the situation so we remove our part or change our part from the truth. Telling the truth is hard, we never know how the opposite side will react on the truth.
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.
McCloskey in his article, "On Being An Atheist" claims that proofs or arguments which theists provide to support their belief “have no weight”. He speaks of this primarily in relation to the ontological argument, the argument which attempts to show that the very concept of God implies his reality. McCloskey believes that there is no point in debating on this particular proof because it has no bearing but the ontological argument serves as the very foundation for other arguments which supports and defends God’s existence. If not for the purpose of proving His existence, the ontological argument is still necessary because it distinguishes the characteristics of God whom we are defending. The first rule of philosophical discourse is clarity and since God is the main topic, there is no way in which we should avoid discussing the ontological argument.
In particular, it robs those who disagree with these silenced opinions. Mill then turns to the reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions. His first argument is that the suppressed opinion may be true. He writes that since human beings are not infallible, they have no authority to decide an issue for all people, and to keep others from coming up with their own judgments. Mill asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is so often in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, and excluding that, in the infallibility of the world they come in contact with.
Henry of Ghent attempts to persuade us that skepticism is impossible and that we can have knowledge. He states that some propositions are shown to always be true due to how humans act and as thus they defeat skepticism. The Skeptics disagree with Henry’s argument since they believe that we have no way of verifying truth. Thus the Skeptics state that we can act through beliefs alone. Henry’s argument is ultimately defeated on this point since it does not give a definitive way of truth verification, and thus allows for Skeptics to argue that they act solely on belief.
If everyone was honest Iago would of told Roderigo he really didn't have a chance with Desdemona, and stop giving him a false sense of hope. If everyone was honest people would say how they honestly felt or their option. To summarize, honesty is not the best policy. Lying is necessary, for a morally just or unjust reason. The truth sometimes blocks a someone from reaching their desires.