It describes that existence is greater than imagination. That is right but here we are only imagining two situation one is just idea of God and another is idea plus reality. But how can we assume that God exists in reality even we don’t know about God’s existence. It seems just a logic which is self-contradictory. We can also apply this logic to other things, maybe this logic will not work.
One of the most superlative ways of discovering this value is through nourishing strengths with the goal of contributing to the happiness of others. The concluding stage which is meaningful life pertains to the deep sense of fulfillment by employing the strengths not only for oneself. The theory reconciles two contradicting views of human happiness between individualistic approach and altruistic
In what follows, I will highlight some important and/or interesting problems raised by the Euthyphro dilemma and try to show how it refutes divine command theory. Divine command theory states that an act is good if and only if it is loved by the gods. That is, to be loved by the gods and to be good are the same. An important challenge to this assertion, the Euthyphro
To live a meaningful life is a very individualistic aspiration, one may say it is to do good in the world while someone else may say that to live a life of meaning and purpose is through personal success. Much like any other person, philosophers and biblical figures would agree that a life of meaning and purpose is dependent to personal experiences. To live the experience of a meaningful life often depends on the circumstances and experiences that people endure. A life of meaning and purpose for Dante is about avoiding sin and doing good. For Perpetua and Felicitas, a life of purpose is achieved through devotion to God, and Plato would say to live a meaningful life is to live a life of reason.
Mill also defends the unprovability the utilitarian axiom. But also argues saying that, because we want happiness fact, this is the greatest good; and if it is for everyone, it will be for everyone. Sidgwick goes one step further by stating that the principle of utility is known by intuition; Moore also end up claiming the intuitive evidence for utilitarianism. However, and consequently, as was happened with the conception of the good in general, here empiricism has come to reject the intuitive evidence for it as dangerous sign of an arbitrary dogmatism, as they say, is one of private and subjective criteria. Thus, more recent utilitarian defend his doctrine from a position or non-cognitive justification, not rational.
It gives us an idea that things that we are imagining are true and real to some extent. In case if we apply Descartes’ model that is mentioned above on existence of God, we can come up with conclusion that God is real in humans’ minds, people clearly see him and the way he is, however there are might be objections because images in human’s mind are not always real but it does not prove that existence of God is false. The first question that comes to mind, is whether this statement is
Of the three main styles of arguments for the existence of God – the cosmological, the teleological, and the ontological – the teleological is probably the second strongest of these arguments. The teleological argument is also the only one of these arguments that reasons to its conclusion inductively. This means that, unlike the cosmological and ontological arguments, the acceptance of the premises of the teleological argument does not commit you to the acceptance of its conclusion. It only commits you to a judgement about the probability of the conclusion. The style of reasoning typically adopted by this method is one that starts from a posteriori observations about our reality, and then reasons a priori – typically through analogy – to the
However, if God can deceive us of our clear and distinct perceptions, perhaps even the thought can be cast back into doubt. The validity of Descartes’ model of knowledge is further questioned when Descartes seem to use God’s existence to escape this flaw in logic. Descartes wants to prove that God exist by claiming it as a clear and distinct perception. However, in order to proof that he has to rely on his clear and distinct perception which is confirmed by God. The proof is known as the "Cartesian Circle."
Lust should be embraced and seen as one of the many gifts from God. Lust in a non - sexual sense is also good because it helps us realize, what we really want, and in the long run we will be happier and better people if we can realize and get what we want. Simon Elkeles said, “I believe in lust at first sight, and attraction, but not love”. For some love and desire is confusing, but lust can be their north star to guide them to what they
Another argument he has made to support his idea is that the idea of God must be an innate idea, meaning we were “born with” the knowledge of God’s existence, because the idea of a supremely perfect being cannot be adventitious or factitious; However, all of these are incorrect, and one can easily figure out why through simple reasoning and common sense. First, let us discuss his point regarding us imperfect mortals being unable to
When someone believes in God, they learn there is always room for improvement within themselves, which for most people can be hard to accept. Following this, another strong argument Freud made which was rather convincing, was that everything can be explained by the scientific method because it is the only source of knowledge humans can physically prove. Therefore, Freud believes if God cannot be proven by the scientific method, he can’t be real. However, this as well cannot be entirely true because while science does explain a lot, a lot of science is only made up of theories that are not actually proven. Freud is not realizing that while the