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). Overall, the Evil Demon argument is that of a sceptical one. It is based on idea which cannot be proven or likened to, yet it is not unthinkable to be
A further objection to this argument is that it seems to trade one kind of skepticism for another. According to Thomas Nagel, if the skeptic accepts that he/she cannot actually express a skeptical proposition such as “Maybe I am a brain in a vat,” then he/she can recast the skeptical argument as follows: “Perhaps I can’t even think the truth about what I am, because I lack the necessary concepts and my circumstances make it impossible for me to acquire them!” Nagel concludes that if this is not skepticism, he does not know what
In conclusion, evil proves God’s existence and thus the question as to why God permits evil does not work to disprove His existence. Craig ends on the note that we cannot possibly surmise that God’s overall plan does not work to contribute to the salvation of the greatest number of people (p.
The notion of "meme," as described in Susan Blackmore's essay "Strange Creatures" is a rather confusing topic. She tends to give us a sense of humiliation, suggesting that we are nothing but imitations or copies of other, indicating that we are not creative enough to innovate ideas our self. However, Alain de Botton's essay "On Habit" can serve as an interpretation to the fact that us humans are creative enough to innovate our own new ideas, and that the word "meme" does not really tell us everything about the world. The main problem lying within the notion of "meme" is that it seems to be too negative. It willfully obscures the idea of human creativity and innovation.
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
Odysseus was also irresponsible because he never told the truth and he disobeyed the gods. Odysseus was all around, irresponsible. In conclusion, Odysseus is not the archetype hero people claim him to be. Odysseus shows characteristics of irresponsibility, unloyalty and pride. Odysseus falls short of what people claim an archetype hero to be.
The major premise does not have an exact number; instead it is suppressing relevant evidence. The minor premise is guilty of appealing to authority, where there is limited information about the “scientists”. The reader is left with no knowledge about their expertise or how closely related the “scientists” are to this topic. The premises are relevant as they are connected directly to the conclusion but they are not adequate. For example, more specific evidence could have been used instead thus making the argument a hasty prediction.
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
Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil. Mackie’s argument highlights the inconsistency that arises between the premises of God’s existence. Mackie proposes the problem of evil to be that “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; [God exists]; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, 1955, p.200). Mackie states these four propositions cannot coexist, therefore, if evil exists, God cannot and conversely, if God is real evil must be
Another theory that would be useful in explaining this particular phenomenon would be postmodernism. With explaining this particular topic, Jean Baudrillard discussed hyper reality. Hyper reality is the representation of reality. Basically, hyper reality is a mixture of what is real and what is not, which means there is no clear way of separating the real from what is not real. Baudrillard argues that hyper reality does not have a positive impact on society.