All our actions those related to criminal, a world leader we are responsible for our actions.
The brain makes an unconscious commitment to selection of specific movement.
How can you claim existence of God?
Neuroscientist can claim that heaven exists after human beings .Brain scans pointed that his overall covering the segments of the brain that gives us memory, idea was not functioning. Is hell exothermic or endothermic?
Many student explain this matter by Boyle’s law. Students who belongs to chemistry department want to know how to mass of hell is changing in time.
Ancient people explain about existence of God that if you are not involve of their religion, definitely you will go to hell. We should be keep in mind rules of religion. This is written in
…show more content…
People comment on the existence of God that God provide them a lot of knowledge. This knowledge can be related to social, science, technology. People say that
God is unique but we see God as different form. It is a common thinking among people. We can read the story of God existence in holy books. Often many people go to temple and prayer for God. People gives argument that when they are facing problem then God help them and solve the problem.
Ontological argument on existence of God:
God exists as an idea in the mind. If God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God. Therefore God exists. Most of the argument for existence of God rely on at least a posteriori obligation. Ontological arguments attempt to point that we can guess God’s existence form so to speak, excellent definition of God.
Anselm provided the first ontological argument for the God’s existence. Ryan stringer defends two type of argument from completion against the existence of God. The first ones are inductile and thus present disbelief as a tentative conclusion, while the second one is separating and thus purports to lastly show separating based on the logical
At some point in their lives, almost everyone has pondered the idea of what happens to someone after death, regardless of what religion they were. For me and in my life, I have always wondered if I were to die tomorrow, would I in the eyes of Jesus be willingly brought into Heaven. Nobody can say for sure what either Heaven or Hell looks like. Granted all of this, I will describe Heaven and Hell in depth based on the writings of C.S. Lewis in his book The Great Divorce. Along with this, I will add my own perspective on why I believe Lewis portraits these places in the particular ways that he does.
Polycarp (d. 155), in one of his letters, speaks of “eternal fire which is never quenched.” Justin Martyr (d. 165) repeatedly spoke of “everlasting punishment” and thought that this punishment consisted of being scorched with “fire.” Irenaeus (d. 200) also mentioned “eternal fire” and spoke of the damned getting casted “into the lake of fire.” Tertullian (d. 230), defending the immortality of the soul against heresies, contended that the Bible’s language of “destruction” had to be understood as a literal punishment in “hell.” Evidently, during the first three centuries of Christianity the language undoubtedly supports the doctrine of conscious, everlasting punishment.
The topic of Dr Frankenstein playing God can be related to the current day issue of abortion laws. Creating life should just be the act of God and taking it away is in the same context. Twenty years before Shelly published "Frankenstein" Luigi Galvani discovered that electricity could make a dead person's muscles twitch and simulate some type of life. This portrays the belief that reanimation is possible. The common belief of Dr Frankenstein playing God in this novel can also be portrayed as an issue between all religions.
Religion can help make sense of anything that occurs in one’s life whether good or bad. If it’s good, it is of God, but if it’s bad, it is automatically stated that it is of the devil. People are devilish and they should be rebuked and the devils cast from the souls of hell. Religion has been stated to provide inspiration, and is the force that bind individuals together. However, organized faith has its disadvantages.
There have been an innumerable amount of arguments for the existence of God for hundreds of years. Some have become much more popular due to their merit, and their ability to stay relevant through changing times. Two arguments in particular that have been discussed for a very long time are the ontological and cosmological arguments. Each were proposed in the period of the high middle ages by members of the Roman Catholic Church. They each have been used extensively by many since their introduction.
The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist.
The traditional claim of all Cosmological Arguments is defined as “something outside the universe is responsible to explain the existence of the universe” (PowerPoint 380). In the “causal argument,” or the First Cause Argument on the cosmological argument, “something” outside of the universe that is supposed to inform us about the existence of the universe is argued to be explained as God. As the first cause argument goes into depth and with the help of Thomas Aquinas, it is easy to see how God is responsible for explaining the existence of the universe around us. Within the first cause argument on the cosmological argument the following premises and conclusions are discussed: Premise 1: There exists things that are caused. Meaning that
Anselm’s argument is based on this known definition of the concept of God alone. Descartes’ argument for the existence of God is based on his foundation of knowledge, logic. Humans have the idea in their minds of infinite perfection. Humans also have the idea of themselves as inferior to this idea as imperfect. For humans to have the idea of infinite perfection, there must be truth in the reason for them having this idea.
The argument for God’s existence is that God is a perfect being, he is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, and supremely powerful. Descartes goes on to talk about how God exists because he can conceive of him as better than himself (AD 40). God is perfect and perfect at everything, and was the first thing that sent everything into motion (AD 45). God is the ultimate cause.
In this essay, I will set out to prove that Thomas Aquinas’ First Cause Argument does not show that God exists and the conclusion that God exists does not follow from the premises of the first cause argument. I do think that the conclusion is valid and could be sound/or has the potential to be, but the premises fail to provide the basis upon which to reach such a conclusion. Hence, I will be raising some objections to the premises and will try to disprove any counter-arguments that could be raised in its defense. This would be done by examining Aquinas’ First Cause Argument and trying to disprove it whilst countering arguments in its defense.
Anselm famously associated with the “ontological argument” for the existence of God. Anselm, in Proslogion, coined the term “ontological” to describe a branch of philosophy that deals with the notion of “being or existence.” (McGrath & OverDrive, Inc. 2001 p. 181). Proslogion is a work of meditation, not of logical argument.
St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, first proposed the ontological argument about the existence of God. The Archbishop relies on ontology to prove that God indeed does exist. In this way, the archbishop was able to show God’s existence using His definition. Although the ontology was used for such purposes before Anselm, it is thought that he put it in the most comprehensive manner. The basis of the argument is the use of logic, which means that to prove that God exists one needs not apply experience.
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
The religious arguments precisely mean that experiences are part of religion and contribute towards ups and downs of faith, achievement and doubts. The religious experiences are ones which are connected to God or God’s action. The religious experiences are divine according to some philosophers and therefore God Exists. These experiences are on the whole similar to perceptions or also taken as vertical and further more they show world accurately according to some philosophers these religious experiences are similar to each other.
I will start my points in this argument by, first, opposing the evidences and reasons why we should believe that God exists and second, by pointing one of many reasons why we should believe that God does not exist. In opposing