Because, if gods omnipotent then there is no stone too heavy for him to lift. Thus, depending upon what one believes about god, the answer to this paradox is different. All in all, the paradox of the stone is an interesting though experiment in debating gods omnipotence. The roots to Aquinas were key in the creation of this argument. Mavrodes did a great job of responding to this argument in an argument that elaborated that there is no logical discrepancy with god lifting a stone and gods
Aquinas identified a series of cause as well as effects in the universe. He however rejected the idea of an idea of infinite series of causes as he believed that there must have been a first uncaused cause. This first uncaused cause would have started the change of other causes that then would have resulted in all events happening. This first cause was
Hume questions the notion of causation within his philosophical work. In “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion,” assumptions and speculations of how the world was founded are classified as not true empirical evidence. Hume believed that although everything in the universe had a cause we could not explain how the universe was caused. (Hume, 1779). Likewise Immanuel Kant opposed the cosmological theory, he also believed that there were limitations to how much we
The big bang does not explain why it took place, nor how the universe was created. However, it can be argued that the big bang theory addresses the evolution of the universe, not its creation. The big bang is simply a theory. This means, that it cannot be proven, but it can be disproven. Observations and tests carried out which support the theory have made it stronger, resulting in more people willing to accept it.
Secondly, the lack of complete understanding of a God that is greater than any other is the basis of Anselm’s argument. In other words, one needs not understand how it is that no other greater God exists, because it is not possible to do that. It is the concept of understanding that such a being exists that is important. As long as it is possible to have such a state, then the definition given by Anselm is
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
This can lead to a question by the people who do not support this principle that if it is, and then can mind exist without the body? Clearly, the question is about the existence of the mind in the absence of
Hume’s have stated that Aquinas’s design argument should not be based on religion and the intelligent designer lacks the intellectual capability to design a complex universe. These two objections lacks validity and is very subjective. Hume’s provides no reliable source to prove his claim. Aquinas’s presents a valid argument that the world is governed by God. First, he used philosophical reasoning suggesting that everything in the universe operate and moves for an end.
Craig defends the Kalam by using two arguments. Argument one is as follows: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of existence; the universe began to exist; therefore: the universe has a cause. Argument two addresses the cause of existence more specifically and is as follows: Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe has a cause; if the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal creator of the universe exists.