Paradoxes Now with the possibility of backwards causation there arises some paradoxes within the view. Namely, there are three different types of paradoxes to talk about, the Bootstrap Paradox, the Consistency Paradox, and Newcomb’s Paradox. The one that we will focus on, and I believe holds that most weight against backwards causation is Newcomb’s Paradox. The paradox in short is that a person is given a choice between two boxes, by a fortune teller who can fully predict the choice of the person. The boxes contain one thousand dollars in a clear box, box A, and an opaque box, box B, that either contains one million dollars or no money at all.
The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.
If we designate the God who punishes His followers as “anti-God,” the rewards to be earned by believing in God in offset by the possibility that the God we believe in is the “anti-God.” Similarly, the losses to be suffered by not believing in God is balanced by the possibility that the God we did not believe in is the “anti-God.” In this way, all possible attributes of God and their opposites essentially cancel the net benefit of each choice to zero. While some may argue that some of these attributes of God are “absurd,” without any prior knowledge of who God is, all attributes of God must be considered as equally
Ruby’s argument is deductively valid. An impotent demiurge may exist, but the appellation of “God” is unwarranted, along with the epithet of “faultless”. An omniperfect deity simply cannot coexist with turpitude, yet the antipodal notion is the quintessence of religion, making religion fundamentally
An omniscient God is self-refuting and contradictory. “If God gives us free will, then he cannot for see what we will do in the future, if that would be possible it wouldn't be free will. So this means that the biblical God cannot be omniscient for he cannot for see our actions.” Is it logical for God to know all things? Again, this argument shouldn't be used to prove if there is a God because omniscience is just an attribute of God, and not every religion teaches that their God is omniscience.
The existence of God has always been a particularly controversial issue in modern society. Between extremely dedicated believers, atheists or even modern scientists, the concept of God’s existence in the secular world has always been disputed. Despite the quite dated arguments of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Aquinas proved the existence of God during his time through his Five Ways or proofs of God’s existence. The Five Ways or Proofs are logically sound and remains relatively acceptable as reasoning for God’s existence during Aquinas’ time on earth. Of course, the Five Ways is not necessarily flawless and may have been proven wrong in many different ways over the years.
ID: 000883370 537 Words Pascal suggests that the faith in believing God is a "wager". For any person S, he or she has two choices can be made. One choice is α, the other is β, and if α is chosen to have a greater benefit for S, S should choose α. Taking into account the existence of God or not has half of the possibility, and believing God has greater benefit. Therefore, people should choose to believe in the existence of God.
• There is no evidence or at any rate not sufficient evidence for the proposition that God exists. Alvin Plantinga has canvassed them lucidly in his books Does God have a Nature? A substance’s essence, says Plantinga, will be a certain one of its properties – that conjunctive property which includes as conjuncts those properties which all which the substances has in all possible worlds in which it exists. So if God is identical with God’s essence, then God is identical with a property. But God, being a person, is not a property.
Does Evil disprove Atheism? I thought the speaker in this video made an excellent point regarding whether or not evil disproves God. As C. S. Lewis put it, “The shadows prove the sunshine.” In order to have shadows, you must have sunshine.
Weaver 1 Michelle Weaver Faith & Philosophical Enquiry PHI-110RS-ATWE Co_PHI-110-ATWE-2018SP1 Dr. DonatienCicura 25 February 2018 Saint Thomas Aquinas: Proof of the Existence of God Saint Thomas Aquinas was a theologian who wrote about proving the existence of God. There are five ways that Aquinas argues to show that God exists and I chose to write about two of those ways. The second way: “Argument from Efficient Causes” meaning that nothing in this world could have been created from itself.
In this paper, I will begin by stating the Problem of Evil. Following this I will include two objections to the argument and why I find the argument to not be convincing. The Problem of Evil is an argument concerning the existence of God and why God cannot exist because of the presence of evil in the world. The argument begins by saying that God is both all-powerful and wholly good, and that evil exists in the world. However, these statements contradict each other, so all three cannot be true.
1. Wittgenstein’s statement is correct. I don’t think that the believers wouldn’t have believed if first they didn’t have the proof. In essence this is because you really can’t explain a proof if you haven’t experience it yourself. For example, you cannot explain color unless you show examples of that color.
Several philosophers before Kierkegaard tried to prove the existence of God, but Kierkegaard didn’t follow that same path. He felt that it is more valuable to discover more subjective and personal truths than one universal Truth (375). Reading this made me feel more secure about being agnostic. The truth for me is that there is no way for me to prove or disprove that God exists.
St. Anselm and Descartes are known for presenting the first ontological arguments on the existence of God. The word ontological is a compound word derived from ‘ont’ which means exists or being and ‘–ology’ which means the study of. Even though Anselm and Descartes’ arguments differ slightly, they both stem from the same reasoning. Unlike the other two arguments on God’s existence (teleological and cosmological), the ontological argument does not seek to use any empirical evidence but rather concentrates on pure reason. The rationale behind this school of thought
Modern Day Fools In Our Midst It is a serious charge to call someone a fool. When you or I call someone a fool, it is unlikely that we are referring to an objective analysis, like the person having a psychiatric disorder or subnormal intelligence, and therefore likely to be under special supervision. No, when we call someone a fool, it is usually a subjective opinion, someone with whom we may disagree, and may even abhor because we judge that person to be lacking good sense or sound judgment. To willy-nilly call someone a fool is dangerous, because first; it might be untruthful, and secondly, the person may be far more intelligent than you are, and you may not have the judgment to see that.