From theses parallels we can draw several common emphases in combinational methodologies. First, combinationalists collectively agree that no one test for truth for instance, empirical adequacy, is an adequate test for truth. At the minimum, both facticity and rationality are essential, and existential or religious significance is often included as well. Truth tests must be logical and factual. Secondly, combinationalists usually make assumptions in their opening point.
So it questions the premises on which the fact "no greater than God can be conceived" was built upon. Thus it self-contradicts the idea of non-existence of God. So God exists because, to be the perfect being he has to exist. Thus God exists and the idea of non-existence of God is ruled out
Hume argues the empirical theism. Empirical theist believes in an anthropomorphized (human-like) God. He argues that given how much evil there is in our reality, we can not gander at our universe and reasonably infer from the evidence that God is infinitely or even moderately good, wise, and powerful. Therefore, drawing the conclusion from the evidence presented by nature, the only conclusion would be that God is indifferent between good and evil, morally neutral. Consequently, this argument cannot possibly tell us about God’s moral nature.
J. L. Mackie on his writing “The Subjectivity of Values” develops two main arguments against the objectivity of values. Mackie states, “There are no objective values” (pg.175) where he expresses his belief that there are no objective, absolute or universal moral truths and argues in favor of moral skepticism, the view that people cannot have knowledge about morality. While actions naturally can be perceived as morally good or bad, there is nothing that makes them objectively good or bad. Mackie presents two main arguments to corroborate his critique in morality. The argument from relativity in which he claims there are no objective values and the argument from queerness where objective values would be different from any other thing in the universe (pg.
From now on, we will assume that Descartes successful proved that our senses, our body, and anything that we believe to be true is not reliable. If we cannot rely upon anything, then there are no premises to use to prove anything. Descartes goal is to find a response to the doubt cast in the First
Critical Analyses of St. Anselm’s argument for the Existence of God and Douglas Gasking’s argument for the Non-Existence of God. Arguments against St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God St. Anselm begins with a definition of God, argues that an existent God is superior to a non-existent God and concludes that God must exist in reality, for his non-existence would contradict the definition of God itself. The argument does not seem plausible to an unbiased person, even at the very first reading. It seems as if not all aspects of the question under scrutiny have been considered. The basic assumption, on which the entire argument stands, that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined can seem doubtful to a person who doubts the existence of God, for if one doubts that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived, then he may also be skeptical if any person has thoughts about the same being, whose existence itself is doubtful.
SEVEN (low). I … don’t think … he’s guilty. Just because you think something to be right, you cannot assume it to be true. Above argument is a formal fallacy because its logically incorrect because of no evidences to his argument. TEN.
Rationalism is beliefs in the external world that give somethings like a power or transcendent being. Empiricism is belief in sensation experience that looks like a science. I think both concepts are conflict in some situation. For example, concept cannot be given by experience. Such Geometry is one example of a situation that not possible to observation.
This premise only makes sense because we’ve applied it to our ordinary lives. As Hume argues, the only way to ensure an everyday principle like causality still works in vastly different conditions is to have direct experience of it, which we cannot so the theory is invalid. Secondly, this argument functions on the basis of a priori judgments where philosophers attempt to reveal God through rational syllogism alone. The argument does not provide any validating evidence which weakens the
Parfit thinks that each of these three possibilities should be rejected. Moreover, he wants to refute that for any question concerning personal identity in any case, there must be an answer that is true (Loux 375). He argues that if all the possible answers are unbelievable, then it is difficult to decide which of them is true, and difficult to even keep the belief that one of the answers must be true (Loux 375). He continues saying that if individuals do away with this belief, as he thinks it should be, then these problems will disappear (Loux 375). Parfit’s main use of fission argument is to inspire the claim that identity of an individual does not matter in survival.