However, a situation in which that logic falls through is if the demon can cast thoughts onto the Meditator’s mind. He fails to consider the possibility that the mind exists to capture “thought signals” much like an eye which captures light signals. In this scenario, his mind would be a blank slate made only for the demon’s thoughts to be projected on and nothing if the demon was not present. Some may propose that Descartes would then be proved right in the notion that he exists, but would have failed to discern his true nature. Though this is interesting semantics, by his own definitions of existence, Descartes would actively have to be producing his own thoughts, but in this situation, he is merely a tool, just as much as any other inanimate object, and would therefore, most likely not consider himself to be
Antigone sees this pride as damaged, and believes that he does not use logic in his reasoning. The logical way to handle the situation, from Antigone’s point of view, would be to bury Polyneices because doing so would please the gods. Antigone is not afraid of Creon because she recognizes that Creon’s order is coming from his disillusionment of the power he holds. This magnifies Antigone’s determination to resist Creon’s decree. On the other hand, Antigone knows that the gods are not prideful.
Licon states that free-will is not an argument to the existence of God and evil. He introduces his thesis by naming all kinds of suffering-inducing situations and circumstances such as, famine, disease, rape, murder, earthquakes etc. and that if there is an all-powerful, all-knowing God who is perfectly benevolent (1) he would want to prevent all this suffering, but not all of these situations are human caused, Licon fails to comment on earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, the so called natural disasters even in those, God doesn’t interfere, He merely allows that to happen as well. He concludes that “freedom is intrinsically valuable” and it is valuable but it is also absolute, not partial. “ It suggests that our ability to make our own free decisions is so important that it is a good outweighing even all the bad things people choose to do- it
Plantinga briefly suggests the possibility of free non-human beings, such as fallen angels or evil spirits, bearing responsibility for natural evil. From this, he appears to attribute natural evil to moral actors that humans are unaware of. One might conclude that Plantinga claims all evil is inevitably moral in nature, just that it is not in the power of humans to know better. Hence, the existence of natural evil is a mere matter of
Satan challenges God’s authority proclaiming, “Who can in reason, then, or right assume monarchy over such as live by right his equals if, in power and splendor less, in freedom equal?” (5, lines 794-797) Satan acknowledges that God is more powerful and splendid, but denies God’s authority over angels. By purposely Satan’s argument equates freedom with anarchy; this is absurd. Individual freedom is not completely unrestrained. Free beings are still subject to lawful authority. Satan compounds this fallacy by asserting, without evidence, that angels do not err.
This can lead to some discord and animosity, such as brawls, intense arguments, and in some cases war. One may call me fatuous for making these points, because one may think I agree to the existence of good and evil because I stated it is artificial. Well, be prepared to be debunked, as when one references good and evil, they use no scientific evidence of its existence. It’s typically based off of one’s moral compass, law, and literature, but is never genuinely based on a highly accredited scientific source. However, one may argue that you can use people with mental issues who do crimes are evil.
On the other hand, if God come from a less perfect being, it would mean that the idea of perfection precedes imperfection does not follow through. Either possibilities defeats Descartes’s God’s argument because it contradicts with the two ideas thereby undermining Descartes’s use of reason. This is because Descartes heavily emphasizes on reasoning and evidently use reasoning to formulate his two ideas of “something must come from something” (Bennet 2004, 12) and perfection precedes imperfection. Ultimately, if Descartes way of reasoning is unable to reconcile the two ideas that he has formulated, then it would be difficult for him to prove God’s
Moreover the Dualists could basically contend that we don't yet know enough about how the universe functions so as to comprehend this collaboration. Additionally, they might basically endeavor to express that this thinking substance is a reality and trust it through confidence. On the other hand, by then they are essentially trusting in religion as opposed to honing science. Just expressing that dualism is right in light of the fact that they trust it is, or the book of scriptures says we have souls, is a deadlock and can prompt no new data or
Many ancient philosophers such as Boethius and Seneca do not think agree with the previous statement. Both have advocated for a life disconnected from the lust of external goods. Boethius makes a strong case against specific possessions in life. To him, the problem with the pursuit of happiness is that such a concept is very vague, people simply end up end up being misguided and find false truth in external goods. Notably, Boethius does acknowledge that the quest for happiness is a natural habit for human beings, but people are simply trumped by false expectations of what happiness truly is .
Fictions are as lies that we accept. As Tahar Ben Jelloun wrote in his book Le premier amour est toujours dernier : « Every fiction is a robbery of reality, and sometimes it comes back to it, it melts with it ». We know that the author is telling us about something that does not exist even if his research makes it more reliable. For a moment, we accept to believe in him and the boundary between truth and reality is getting more blurred. Stephen King once said “Fiction is the truth inside the lie” meaning that the whole story we are reading is a lie created by the author in order to make it the truth.
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.
Questioning if God is not omnipotent, the entire idea of God creating the world can be called into question. Another issue is that if it is said that God is no longer entirely good there is the possibility to say that God has evil or bad intentions, and we should denounce him. Lastly, if one says that evil does not exist, then there is no possible way to separate those people who are considered to be deviants of society. This would mean that those who commit crimes that are evil in nature like murder and rape would be considered to be normal and acceptable. In Mackie’s Fallacious Situation, there are four main points that are discussed.
In states of emergence the ideas are there but the logic isn 't and that is what you get from this story. Not that it 's not true, but that it’s not organized linearly, which in fact may be more true than a story that was crafted in an organized fashion. When people tell stories they edit and spice to give the reader or listener a clean line of events. But life is not clean and orderly it is a mas confusion and chaotic mess. Therefore, the non-linear line here may in fact be more true than the “truth.” a war story should not be told neatly because it probably didnt fashion out that way.
He said that the reason he dose not believe in the Principle of Sufficient Reason is because the argument that Aquinas made was a failure. Hume had a lot to say about the cosmological argument and he had some critiques about it as well. David Hume spoke his peace on the argument and he also had some critiques about it. He questioned how is it really possible to make guesses on how the world works and what is causing things to happen. He says that it is really not possible to change ones mind on their philosophy such as Aquinas did in this argument.
Jones. Only foundation for atheist for not having faith in Gods is that they believe there is a deficiency of faithful indication, Atheists debate if God is present then why evil subsists? Why hurt or loss? Why suffering? Mackie point is if Holy Being subsists as well as is a presence that is completely good, all-powerful, all-knowing, then there shouldn’t be reality of evil, and theists would not discard that Holy Being is completely good, omnipotent, and omniscient and along with that they believe in the existence of some evil.