Hume and Kierkegaard are responding to philosophical mindset which held belief in the existence of God as something that can be rationally proven. In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments, both philosophers take issue with the a posteriori and a priori proof that have been used by philosophers to prove God’s existence. While their critiques of these arguments have much in common, the conclusions they draw from their analysis could not be more different—Hume ultimately denies God’s existence while Kierkegaard upholds it. While a full investigation into Hume’s argument against God’s existence and Kierkegaard’s argument for the necessity of the leap of faith, we can see how their critiques of these rational
And, if one believes that god is omnipotent, then this question is irrelevant because this question is a contradiction. Because, if gods omnipotent then there is no stone too heavy for him to lift. Thus, depending upon what one believes about god, the answer to this paradox is different. All in all, the paradox of the stone is an interesting though experiment in debating gods omnipotence. The roots to Aquinas were key in the creation of this argument.
Euthyphro, the argument, gives two alternatives to the divine command theory that either morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God. Further he explained that neither alternative is true and therefore the Divine command theory is false. So is Plato suggesting that there is no such thing as a definition of holiness, that there is no one feature that all holy deeds have in
We may understand Gould to mean that one can have both a scientific and religious perspective on the world, but more importantly, his account pinpoints how nature does not, because it cannot, provide evidence that would somehow be available through the moral lens of the human. We cannot apply such tools toward mechanisms that require a different mode of operation.
Jason Iloulian Professor Farley Second Paper Nov 10th – 2015 Do Socrates and Voltaire have the same view of the relation between reason and religion? For the most part, one can sufficiently argue that both Socrates and Voltaire have the same view of the relation between reason and religion. Such a view is best summarized as the notion that religion is within the bounds of reason. As such, each philosopher believes that religion—including its creeds and tenets—are subject to reason and to inquisitions that are based on reason. Moreover, these philosophers also subscribe to the notion that religion should not influence various areas of religion, such as government, unless it can do so in a way that is reasonable.
Descartes most famous phrase “I think, therefore I am” shows that we cannot be deceived of our own existence as we cannot think if we exist if we do not in fact exist. Descartes’ second part of the hypothesis for the Evil Demon argument refutes the idea of there being such a being with the assumption of a God. With the assumption of a God who is merciful and kind the chance of an evil being deceiving and tricking us would be highly unlikely to happen. Therefore, we can be very sure that we are not being deceived by an evil demon, only for those who believe in God. Other people who do not would rather not believe in the existence of God than believe the uncertainty of everything else (Descartes first mediation, page 202).
Craig also states that life without God lacks purpose, “If there is no God, then our life is not fundamentally different from that of a dog”. However, I must say, even dogs have a purpose because some are trained as service animals. For example, the blind have seeing-eye dogs, some are used in healing therapy trained as healing pets, and others are trained to protect their masters. However, God’s highest creation is mankind and we were made in the image of God and created to worship and glorify Him. In the evolutionary process there is no purpose or significance for life and everything that we have done will be meaningless.
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins emphasizes on four theses that roughly entail his argument. Science is evidence based whilst faith is blind, If God created everything, who created Him, morality does not depend on a creator, and the Christian religion is perilous to society. His writing forces the reader to ponder the validity of religion. Dawkins adamantly states that religion can either be fully true or false. If proven false, it is the duty the intellectually conscience to refute.
This tries to prove God’s existence by saying that all natural things were created for a purpose by an intelligent designer; this is much like Paley’s Teleological Argument. This argument does not work because it does not prove that the intelligent designer of natural things must be God. Overall, Aquinas’s argument fails to fulfil its only purpose: prove that God exists. If an argument cannot prove that God is all knowing, all good, and all powerful, then it does not prove the existence of a god at all. Another main reason why this argument and many other arguments for God’s existence does not work is because of the problem of evil.
Firstly, Lloyd illustrates how Descartes adapted reason into a methodical thought that he used to attempt to form a rational basis for the belief in God (Lloyd, 1993:39). Descartes mentions in the Meditations dedicatory letter that he believes that for theists it is their faith that holds the rational basis for belief in God, whereas atheists do not have this faith and so it lies in reason to prove that God exists in order to persuade them (Descartes, 1996:3). However, REFERENCE AGAINST THIS POINT Moreover, from Descartes thoughts on reasoning he stemmed his dualistic view of the body and mind being two separate entities, which Lloyd notes includes the distinction between the rational mind, which Descartes identifies with the soul, and the irrational body (Lloyd, 1993:45). As Descartes has established his dualistic view, he highlights the cogito in his third meditation,
Decision are not made in advance. Therefore, free will is possible under an omniscient God. Response to Objections While Lewis made a valid argument in defense of Theological Fatalism, he has failed to recognize that predestination, in any form, still warrants that one’s actions will be predetermined. Opponents of Lewis’ argument would argue that even though god exists in an timeless realm, we still can not act out of free will. The argument is as follows: God timelessly knows that I will do C. If god timelessly knows that I will do C,then C is now-necessary.
Reason can adequately attain certain conclusions, but it should not be treated separately from faith because faith can help prevent mishaps in judgment. As Pope John Paul II outlines in Fides Et Ratio, during the Fall “man was in no position to discern and decide for himself what was good and what was evil,” (Paul II 14). Man needed God to assist him in making the right choice but instead acted prideful and tried to use solely reason. Sin enables reasoning to become distorted, which ultimately impairs the truth when man attempts to avert himself from God. When this occurs, man ultimately becomes “the fool” (Paul II 12) by attempting to avoid the assistance God can provide.
that there exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or lesser evil.”(Rowe 370) In that case, the theists counterargument is as solid as that of the atheists’. With the G.E. Moore shift, the theists are able to argue for God’s existence without denying the premise presented by the atheists. However, the problem with those two objections is that they don’t necessarily prove God’s existence. For the objections only prove that it is difficult to assume God’s non-existence.
Per Mackie’s logic, it does not make sense that such a being who is wholly good would not eliminate evil. Based off this and the fact that evil still exists, Mackie concludes that God does not exist. However, Mackie’s proposition does have a few slight
First being theism which states that god does exist. Secondly, there is atheism which states that god does not exist. Lastly, there is agnosticism which states that it’s unclear that god does or does not exist. You would think if you don’t have enough evidence for god’s existence, it would be a good idea to go with the argument of agnosticism. However, there is sufficient evidence to prove that argument unsound.