To have a goal, or a set of goals in one’s mind is of concern in Tillich’s mind. Outside itself, the concern must not have any goods to make this “ultimate”. God alone can be the ultimate desire of the human soul because God alone is permanent and absolute according to St. Augustine. Temporary and changing are contracted by the objects of creation. Therefore, essences are identical to God’s existence.
As a counter argument it is faulty, and ultimately fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the traditional God exists and has an adequate reason for evil. In a court of law, the burden of proof falls onto the prosecution to prove their claim beyond a reasonable doubt while the defense counters their position by establishing some doubt. The prosecution can be seen as Craig as he claims the existence of a God, whereas Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheism only exists in relation to theism. Atheism is a response to theism but theism is an idea in itself, independent of atheism. In other words, without theism atheism would not exist, as such without a claim made by the Crown the defense is not needed.
There is an argument which he calls “Basic Argument” which proves that humans can not be morally responsible for their actions. No matter if determinism is true or false Strawson still holds the view on validity of the Basic Argument. The Basic Argument is as follows. Nothing can be causa sui ( meaning nothing can be the cause of itself.) In order to be truly morally responsible for one 's actions one would have to be the cuase of itself,at least in certain crucial mental respects.
I agree that nobody can have true moral responsibility for what they do as well because if that were the case, I would also have to be responsible for my character, personality, and motivational structure which I cannot be. An automatic rebuttal to this claim would be; What if I change my attitude or change my character, wouldn’t I then be responsible or who I am? The answer is no because even if you change the way you are, it would have been caused by or lead from the way you were which is a way that you are not responsible for. So you cannot be responsible for the “new person” that you are now, which ultimately solidifies Strawson’s argument. For clarity, responsibility has different meanings legally and morally.
The argument states the existence of evil is impossible under the attributes of God. It is evident evil exists but it is not clear whether God exists. The purpose of Mackie’s and Plantinga’s argument is to prove whether or not God exist based on the existence of evil. Mackie does not agree on the existence of God and uses philosophy to prove it. He believes that there is no rational evidence that
Hume's claim against miracles is that it does not matter how strong the evidence for a miracle it may be it is rather more rational to reject the miracle than to believe in it. Hume states that there are two ways in order to decide to believe a piece of evidence. The reliability of a witness is the first factor. A witness can be dishonest or be ignorant about a situation which would make their claims worth little. So Humes says to take in consideration how reliable the witness is.
Hume’s argument against induction is that “only meaningful propositions are relations of idea and matter of fact”. This meaning that the claim must be priori or a posteriori. However, Hume contradicts himself because his own argument does not meet his own criteria of a meaningful proposition. This is because his statement is not a relation of ideas or a matter of fact. The grue-problem is almost like predicting what will happen in the future based on what happened in the past.
Whether or not I would attend my appointment was an action which was already predetermined therefore there is no free will. The scientific argument against free-will says “ our action and decisions are caused by a non-conscious event that we have no conscious control”(class note). The brain studies have suggested this; our decision is already decided before we are even conscious of them. Because consciousness is required for free will and this argument claims that decisions are caused by
The concept of inclusivity for a christ-centered theist is, unsupported because God wont take nonbelievers into heaven. Christ-centered theists believe the law of non contradiction is true because, God wont let there be two things true at the same time. This one is rational because morality is based on something and not subjective.
Wolff claims that Spinoza confuses attributes with essential determinations, modes with attributes and being from another, and finally confuses substance with being from itself.19Wolff argues that the Spinozistic concept of "mode" is vague precisely because he does not explicitly define what it meant to be conceived through another. This is especially true since beyond modes and attributes it is impossible to conceive of substance, additionally problematizing his notion of substance.20 Since Spinoza's terminology is so vague his concluding substance monism does not necessarily follow. Since substance monism does not legitimately follow, Wolff does not have to be subject to the view that human beings are subject to the same necessary causal relationship to this substance. By problematizing Spinoza's substance monism, Wolff is not subject to Lange's third criterion for
Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing – as he wills to be after that leap towards existence.”1 In this statement Sartre proposes the idea of human’s having no prior nature since there is no God to conceive of the idea. Along with God not being the one to conceive of human nature, seeing as he’s nonexistent or he’s abandoned us, we humans are what we will ourselves to be during our time on this world. “Thus we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse. – We are left alone, without excuse. That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free.”1 With Sartre’s statement here, he’s stating that we are left alone with no higher being to justify the actions we choose, so we are responsible for every single action that we take upon this planet, every step we take, every breath we take, and at the end where he states that, “That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free,”1 Sartre is stating that our own freedom is essentially a bad thing, since it means that we would be responsible for all the evil’s we do during our