God 's existence has been a continuous debate certainly for centuries. The issue of God 's existence is debatable because of the different kind of controversies that can be raised from an "Atheist as being the non-believer of God" and a "Theist who is the believer of God". An atheist can raise different objections on the order of the universe by claiming that the science is a reason behind the perfection of the universe. In Aquinas 's fifth argument, he claims that the order of the universe cannot be explained by chance, but only by design and purpose. To explain this order of the universe he concludes that, there is an intelligent being whom we call "God".
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.
This passage summarizes the Christian idea that upon death the soul will either enter Heaven, Purgatory or Hell depending on how that person chose to live their life. When Jesus returns all the living and the dead will either enter eternal paradise or eternal suffering. This is a similar concept to that of Zoroastrianism where the soul travel on a bridge to Heaven or fall into Hell because of wrongdoings in life. The concept of Jesus Christ coming back to reward the good and punish the evildoers can be compared to that of Sayoshant. Some may credit this to coincidence, that humans have general questions about the world that they would like the answers to and there is bound to be overlap.
While the process that led to his first absolute certainty regarding his existence was impressive, the fact that he proposed his existence as the key to God’s existence demolished the credibility of his argument (Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, p.70). For Descartes to exist, he believed that thoughts must come as a precondition. We understand that thoughts could only be able to process through a living organism. Before and right after the point at which his existence was proven as an absolute certainty, he had not confirmed that other living being could be capable of the same ability, thus if Descartes died then his thoughts would also being lost, his existence would be unproven and the very basis for the existence of God would be gone. The second problem with his argument lied within the cause and effect argument, in which there must exists a God whose presence encompassed everything.
These arguments intend to determine God’s existence mostly through logic and non-aligned to experience. Anselm’s argument is founded on the belief that God exists in the mind, and thus it is probable for God to exist in reality. According to this claim, something that exists in the mind and can also possibly exist in reality is something greater than it is (Malcolm, 1960). In this case, Anselm contends that God cannot only exist in the mind, but it is possible that he also exists in reality since God is the greatest possible thing. However, there are some other philosophers, including Immanuel Kant, who object this argument, disputing facts about the existence of God.
(Swinburne, pg.84) Theist would disagree. The second piece that counters Swinburne’s argument is by John Hicks and it is called “Evil and The God of Love”. Hicks takes a pro-freewill stance and believes in the “Soul-Making Defense” (Hick, pg.85). The author central argument is the belief human beings are not completely fulfilled with the creator’s likeliness. Humans must endure life and its ups and downs in order to become a finished product worthy of God’s kingdom.
This narrows down to how making right decisions in life and living a life of righteousness through avoiding evil and doing good could lead into the fulfillment of human goals and secure them from trouble besides taking us to heaven. Critique to Timaeus’ view of the soul Timaeus carries a notion which directly contradicts creation ex nihilo, the notion that God created the world out of nothing. It limits the creative power of God to using the materials that were present before Him. Just as a carpenter would be limited by the amount and type of materials he has in creating his furniture. He attributes the soul to the ability to move the body without itself being moved and for running the faculties of the body, which some people will find acceptable due to its appeal to some kind of divine intervention in our decision making.
In Darrow’s closing argument he gives his famed “A Plea for Mercy” to the judge. This plea not only acted as a conclusion to his defense, but it also acted as an introduction the eradication of the death penalty. Darrow uses a mix of ethos, pathos, logos, and other rhetorical devices to impose a merciful effect on his audience in hopes to reduce his clients punishment and the use of capital punishment. Darrow gracefully uses all three appeals when referring to the rise of crime after war “I know that it has followed every war; and I know it has influenced these boys so that life was not the same to them as it would have been if the world had not been made red with blood. I protest against the crimes and mistakes of society being visited upon them.
She underscores that no finite being can penetrate the human soul by describing it as more hidden than the supernatural mysteries of ancient myths, such as the “chamber of eleusinian mystery”, and as something only “omniscience” can know. This logically contributes to her closing thought, which she gives as another rhetorical question. “Who, I ask you, can take, dare take, on himself the rights, the duties, the responsibilities of another human soul?” By calling the female soul's rights, duties, and responsibilities “another”, she suggests that both souls are fundamentally the same. She specifically requires this answer of her audience, forcing them to evaluate it's argument
In Plato’s dialogue Phaedo, he explains the soul and comes to the conclusion that the soul is immortal. Through describing the last hours of Socrates life before his execution, he lays out three arguments in support of the idea that while the body may cease to exist the soul cannot perish. In this paper, I will explicate Socrates three arguments for the immortality of the soul and their objections. Then I will argue on the presupposition of the Law of Conservation of Mass, that the universe, entailing the soul, must be cyclical. The Law of Conservation of Mass For the efficacy of this argument, I will ask you grant my assumption that is: Mass cannot be created or destroyed.