This part of the argument I would agree with the most, as when you try to prove that something indescribable exists you will fail as it cannot be described and instead are required to have faith. Let me explain what I mean: The whole purpose of these arguments is to prove that an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God exists, and according to the Judeo-Christian belief this God is also indescribable. Something that cannot be described cannot be fully proven to exists; therefore, in order to believe that God exists it will take a ‘leap of faith.’ The greatest strength of this argument is also its greatest weakness, as this leap of faith cannot without a shadow of a doubt prove that God
Such proofs include teleological and ontological. A proof is an unquestionable, factual statement that directs an argument to the final product and is based on a level of scientific factualness. The existence of the world is no guarantee for believing in the existence of a certain being (God). The cosmological and design only offer points and arguments towards the existence of God, but the
This conversation appears to be good in many ways, however, the science has simply created another belief system - one just as intolerant. To have information provided to you as the absolute truth in dangerous in any situation - now, though, there is evidence to support the facts. Whereas with religion there was no proof, science can back itself up. To not question evidence puts people at risk of being dominated and intolerant. We now believe we have the absolute truth and anyone who does not believe in it is inherently wrong; though many religions and groups have believed they were right before, being supported by science makes people feel like an exception to those who ignorantly believe in what they are told.
—God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. —That which can be conceived not to exist is not God." One can see why God can be considered to seem inconceivable, but some may agree if one knows God that God is conceivable. In suggestion, Sin is one reason God sent Jesus to live on this earth, so we can see with our own eyes that there is a God, but at the same time, there will be those who still choose not to believe in God's existence. The weakness of Anselm argument is, he says he believes in God and seeks God at the same time Anselm thinks that it is hard to seek God when he cannot see God.
It is Philo who reveals the unmendable gaps in the design argument against its main supporter, Cleanthes. However, Philo does not disprove God’s existence in his efforts to criticise the design argument. This is evident because Philo himself states his belief. By revealing the falsity of proving God’s existence through the argument from design, the reader of can conclude that the questions of God’s existence cannot be answered through human experience and reasoning. In Part II of Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume introduces the idea of argument from design through Cleanthes, who states,
As to the reference of ancient texts, Harris is arguing that people choose to be blind to the flaws in these writings, some have not read them completely or blindly rely on the word of authority such as a priest. He points out that there is a great amount of unreason in the world of religion and that relying on authority may be dangerous; how do we know that what the Pope preaches is reliable
Some questions involve death, nature, each individual’s purpose, happiness, and sorrow. One specific concept she tackles concerns the sacredness of our world and its relationship to mystery and science. She argues that mystery is infinite, and counter to what many believe, she says that it is implausible for the Earth to lose its sacredness because of humanity’s obsession with uncovering mysteries about the world. In other words, science is not “the enemy of the sacred” (Moore 153). While the world confirmed Pluto’s existence, several unconfirmed mysteries about the universe arose.
Ernest Nagel, however, maintains that not only are there no good reasons to believe that God exists (he criticizes all of the arguments), there is a good reason to believe that God does not exist. On p. 145, he says raises the difficulty ... " ... which arises from the simultaneous attribution of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence to the Deity. The difficulty is that of reconciling these attributes with the occurrence of evil on the world." We 're going to expand on this idea. We
Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness (Wikipedia, 2014). While this division of methodologies is accurate, in my view, science also requires the adoption of revelation and faith into its methodologies. Revelation is an important methodology in science, without revelation, Archimedes wouldn’t have exclaimed 'Eureka! '; Einstein wouldn’t have developed his special theory of relativity and Newton would have only been angered by an apple falling on his head. The difference is that traditional religions require revelation through divine inspiration, communication from God and religious messengers- science relies on
A Clockwork Orange, written by Anthony Burgess, deals with the essence of humanity and morality. Being difficult topics to grapple with, many turn to a religious perspective to inform their beliefs on these subjects. Burgess himself is a strongly Catholic individual and this ideology shows through in the ideas presented by A Clockwork Orange. The book contains a number of allusions to the Bible, Jesus and God’s intentions for humanity. These religious references build upon each other to develop Burgess’ notion that God created humans with free will, and how this leaves humankind flawed and prone to evil tendences.