The one weakness of Anslem argument is that he didn 't give enough evidences for God existence in reality. Another weakness posed by St Aquinas, as Anselm states God is "that which nothing greater can be conceived" then to understand God in this way is to be equal to him, which Anselm is human and cannot be equal to God. The one strength of Aquinas argument: Aquinas was influential philosopher concerning the different people who have different concepts of God, and how they could understand and accept his argument. Aquinas also presented five ways as evidences to argue the existence of God. One of the weaknesses of the Aquinas argument is that Aquinas contradicts himself when he rejects the possibility that the universe is unlimited.
Hume distinguished the general arguments saying that all miracles claim to be a subject to certain failure. According to Hume, miracle itself is a violation of the laws of nature and our knowledge of miracles is more likely based on the testimony of others. However, the secondhand testimony is considered less reliable than if it was experienced by ourselves. In his section “Of Miracles”, Hume argues that we have no convincing reason to believe in miracles, and definitely not to see them as the basis for the religion. Belief should be based on evidence, and the evidence in favor of miracles comes form testimony of witnesses.
Rushdie states “ as a result of this faith, by the way, it has proven impossible, in many parts of the world, to prevent the human race number from swelling alarmingly”. Basically if we’d follow the spiritual rules we wouldn’t have things like sexually transmitted diseases,in Rushdie's opinion religion is a theory proven wrong. We can say the same about science and evolution and counter argue the reason of God bringing his son down for forgiving our sins. Not everything that is man made, it correct, not saying religion is
The concept of inclusivity for a christ-centered theist is, unsupported because God wont take nonbelievers into heaven. Christ-centered theists believe the law of non contradiction is true because, God wont let there be two things true at the same time. This one is rational because morality is based on something and not subjective.
This means that even thought descartes can not see God he still believe in him, and anything that have anything evil like actions who knows it did not come from God. So in the end Descartes arguments may appear convincing but with the propers resources and plenty of research this leaves Descartes problem of error
This mystical experience has weakness and strengths to prove the existence of supernatural being of God, such as: Mystical experience that belongs to someone cannot be explained by logic. This weakness becomes famous discussion among philosophers. Mystical experience sometimes happens to someone trough the dream or some another unexplained events in his life. Why is this unexplainable by logic? Because, according to David Hume, it against the laws of nature.
Another strong strength is that emphasis is laid on individual’s own experience and viewpoints. Looking at the major weaknesses of existentialism, it can be pointed out that it is based on philosophical concepts that are not practical and are somehow vague. Because of this, it is not empirical in nature, and it is non scientific and hard to confirm with science. Therefore it is problematic to many people as they believe that it is impossible to know how true or how well its works if it is not scientifically proven. I found it appealing when Sartre mentioned that there is “no proof of souls or spirits or ghosts or deities and thus their existence is nothing other than what people make a decision to believe”Pecorino (2000).
Any analysis that considers Jesus Christ and his proclamations historically inaccurate, make the whole Bible worthless. Arguments swing widely between them being either accurate in their portrayal of historical events, or that very few of the events described took place. Many scholars would agree that Christ is a historical figure. The issues that cause controversy are the miraculous events surrounding His life. For this reason, researching the historical accuracy of the setting in the Gospels is crucial to the argument regarding the authenticity of
He discusses the possibility of this occurring through natural theology, or contemplation, but decides that this is not possible due to the “ignorance and stupidity of the people” (sec. 6, pg. 29, para 1). He continues on to refute other possible explanations, before concluding that it occurs as a natural result of the flattery system; humans place one God above all others and say that he is omnipresent and infinite (sec. 6, pg.
Philo concludes that for those who already believe in an omnipotent and all-good god, these four causes are not enough to invalidate their beliefs. INSERT CITATION He says this because all four of his causes can be dispelled under the assumption that there is some divine explanation that reconciles god’s goodness with the evil in the world. However, coming from an unbiased perspective, Philo says that we certainly cannot infer the existence of a benevolent god when these causes of natural evil are taken into account. In fact, if we do attempt to divulge god’s moral attributes from the state of the universe, then Philo concludes that the only proper deduction we can draw is that god is neither good nor is he evil, but rather he is entirely indifferent to the principles of morality altogether – in essence, god is morally neutral. INSERT