There are a number of arguments and objections to the First Cause but I will argue the success of the objection ‘God is More’ objection which objects to the conclusion of the argument that states that the Christian version of God ,with its attached attributes, exists. The second objection is the ‘Immaterial-Material Causation’ objection which questioned how an immaterial being can be able to cause material existence. The prove of the success of these arguments will therefore weaken the success of The First Cause argument. The First Cause argument states that “for anything at exists, there must have been something else that caused its existence in the past. There cannot be an infinite chain of effects and their causes, going back infinitely into the past.
This is because critics may question the origins of God based on Descartes’s claim that perfection precedes imperfection and “something must come from something”. (Bennet 2004, 12) It is important to note that perfection in itself reaches a limit because it is incapable of improving further, thus when God possesses the sum of all possible perfections, it would mean that God does not have potential for anymore improvements. This presents a dilemma for Descartes because if God is already perfect, and perfection is viewed to be a form limit itself, then there must be no being who is more perfect than God himself. However, since everything has a cause, God must have origins as well. This means that God either comes from nothing or something.
Further, the idea of free will presents any exact replication of an action unless it is continued by the original agent of said action. God could not recreate the action for then it would be God’s action. Thus, he cannot duplicate any person and say she is the same as before. The only form of resurrection that seems plausible with Van Inwagen’s argument has to be literal resurrection then. From here, we can begin to explore further questions.
When looking through the logic of philosophers from the medieval period of Philosophy and their unconvincing logic, we first look at Anselm. Anselm wanted to prove God existed, Anselm argues that you can prove the existence of God through metaphysic metaphysical analysis, for example: Think of the most perfect being possible. If you can picture the most perfect being in your mind, then it is possible that it exists only in your mind as an example of Plato’s Theory of Forms. Anselm’s argument fails because anything you can imagine can come popping out of your mind if you wished it to be so, If anyone were to sit down and imagine the perfect God or the perfect island, would that perfect God or island even exist outside of their mind, would that
Paine says that he did not see the angel himself, therefore he had a right to not to believe. Paine argued that there was a God, but he could only be known through human reason, and he argued that science is the study of the works of God. Paine
Pascal believed in heaven as possible infinite gain, however Descartes believed that the nature and existence of an external world as something that cannot be fully known or understood. Pascal also believed that the belief in God as the only reasonable choice, when Descartes believed that God should always be held true. Their beliefs still back up this objection though. If nothing is known about the external world, or the external world is infinite gain, there is still no absolute certainty in which side of the wager to choose, therefore betting on God as true is still the most reasonable
This is not the case because the source of their power has its origin in God, not their title. Satan continues, “...since by decree another now hath to himself engrossed all power.” (5, lines 774-776) by using the words “by decree,” Satan implies that God’s decree is arbitrary, not based on merit. Satan dismissively refers to God as “another,” denying God’s superior, supreme status as Creator. The phrase “now hath to himself engrossed all power,” implies that God did not always have all power, that somehow God has usurped “all power.” Satan indicates that He unjustly took something from the angels. These false implications are unfounded assumptions, making the logic
When looking through the logic of philosophers from the medieval period of Philosophy and their unconvincing logic, we first look at Anselm. Anselm wanted to prove God existed, Anselm argues that you can prove the existence of God through metaphysic metaphysical analysis for example: Think of the most perfect being possible. If you can picture the most perfect being in your mind, then it is possible that it exists only in your mind as an example of Plato’s Theory of Forms. I think Anselm’s argument fails because anything you can imagine can come popping out of your mind if you wished it to be so, If I were too sit down and imagine the perfect God or the perfect island, would that perfect God or island even exist outside of my mind, would that
This should teach us that God cannot be simply gold or stone or something that man has made. Again, Paul did not need to offer technical arguments. Simply observing the universe should convince people of God 's existence and that He is a powerful, living God. Some people may ask that who was the
Prof John Lennox started his speech with a consideration of worldviews. Atheistic critics of religion by trying to draw battle lines between science and religion. Prof John Lennox dispels this myth with a pointed argument that worldviews actually shape the way everyone, atheists included, view science, so that the real battle is not between atheism and religion, but between the philosophical system of naturalism (nature is all there is) and the philosophical system of theism. In the process, he takes on the two most popular historical examples often cited to show that there is a “war” between science and religion: Galileo and the church, and the Huxley–Wilberforce debate. He explains that in Galileo’s case, the real problem was the Catholic
The customary contentions for the presence of God have been reasonably completely scrutinized by rationalists. Be that as it may, the scholar can, in the event that he wishes, acknowledge this feedback. He can concede that no discerning confirmation of God 's presence is conceivable. Also, he can in any case hold all that is key to his position, by holding that God 's presence is known in some other, non-judicious way. I think, notwithstanding, that an all the more telling feedback can be made by method for the convention issue of shrewdness.
Hello Sir I have a question about the connection between God’s existence and morality. The Euthyphro dilemma summarizes Kant’s argument. Our motivation to obey God’s commands are either moral or not. If moral then the moral motivation to obey God precedes God’s command. In which case, introducing God adds nothing.
The pledge is a perfect example of this, in the modern version it is mandatory to state that we are under God and that there is one to begin with. This would go against the first amendment of freedom of religion, it also goes against the original pledge where there was no recognition of a
From this it is then reasonable to conclude that this causality was set in motion by a supreme being which is God. This argument answers the question of whether or not there is a God far better than the intelligent design arguments of William Paley. For, Paley’s argument easily invalidated by modern science because it argues that simply because there are complex features that can’t be explained by nature and that there are further complex forms in the universe then there must be a God who created the
that there exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or lesser evil.”(Rowe 370) In that case, the theists counterargument is as solid as that of the atheists’. With the G.E. Moore shift, the theists are able to argue for God’s existence without denying the premise presented by the atheists. However, the problem with those two objections is that they don’t necessarily prove God’s existence. For the objections only prove that it is difficult to assume God’s non-existence.