Existence of God
Lewis possesses a strong belief in God. He states that the human population consists of “the majority who believe in some kind of God or gods, and the minority who do not” (39). I agree with this statement because there are many people who have faith in God because their faith gives them happiness and direction in life. The belief in a higher Intelligence causes people to live on Earth with satisfaction. Lewis also argues that the scientific method cannot explain if God exists or not (58). This is true because no observations and experiments can be done to find an answer to God’s existence. Furthermore, people that have a strong faith will not long for scientific answers in order to have believe in God. I cannot disagree with any of the arguments Lewis provides because they all acknowledge the existence of God and do not question God’s existence.
…show more content…
He strongly believes that “the scientific method is our only source of knowledge” (58). I disagree with his belief because people also possess their own sense of knowledge. They gain this knowledge through the different obstacles they come across in their lives, which indicates that not all knowledge comes from scientific method. Freud describes “the teachings of Jesus as “psychologically impossible and useless for our lives” (38). I cannot agree with his statement because there are people who study and believe in Jesus because Jesus gives them an optimistic view to life. Freud argues that human suffering results in the fact that there is no God (41). I can agree to this statement because people start to question God’s existence whenever they experience a downfall in their
Overall, in the book, Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, there are some very strong and applicable points that I believe, should be shared as much as possible. For instance, in the entire book one, Lewis rambles on about the moral law of society, and the outcome of peoples over complicated ways of thinking. He mentions the so called standard of behavior, which it upheld by the thinker to believe that whatever way he sees the situation should be the right way, and however the situation is presented in his mind is how it should be played out. Lewis gives many diverse examples of this action such as, sharing a “bit of orange,” since I “gave you some of mine.” the greed involved with the way of thinking is what Lewis called the law of nature.
1: The two mistaken beliefs are to believe devils do not exist and the second belief is to feel excessive and unhealthy interest in them. You must believe in the devil or demons because even God believes in them. Although second of all you must understand that they are dangerous and not to be messed with or admired. 2: C. S. Lewis acts like he found the letters himself and didn't even write the letters himself. Also C. S. Lewis seemed to not completely understand the letters leaving it up to the readers to decipher the rest.
And if God is God, why is He letting us suffer?” (1) The lifelong quest for answers to these questions shaped his theology
A “simple creature of flesh and bone”(76-77) is not seen as being capable of understanding god’s will. Unlike god a person’s views may be warped by emotion; someone may “suffer hell in [their] soul and [their] flesh.”(77) After the death of Akida Drummer the prisoners forget to pray for him as a direct result of their own suffering. Unlike a god they have been rendered unable to fulfill their promise to their friend because of their own emotional trauma. Sorrow and other emotional responses are described as a force capable of destroying one’s ability to reason. Furthermore humankind is not seen as having adequate trust in god’s will.
If you grant this argument as valid, and are consequentially moved to choose to believe in God through reason, you are now meet with the obstacle of convincing yourself to believe. Pascal says that in this case you should not try to convince yourself by trying to further prove God’s existence, but instead you should observe those who have
Anh Nguyen - PHIL 256 Final Descartes’s arguments for the existence of God and its fallacies Descartes (1596 – 1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician and scientist. At an early age, he received his education from the Jesuits and the experience with the Aristotelian ideals there upset him, yet the field of mathematics fascinated him with its precision, uniform certainty and necessity. This dissonance eventually planted a seed into his mind and drove him to question about the nature of knowledge, namely whether it can match mathematics’ indubitableness. Descartes’ attempts in resolving the problem resulted in his Meditations of First Philosophy (1641), which was written in response to queries regarding his new philosophical basis for a novel way to approach the system of knowledge. Upon its publication, Descartes’ Meditations provoked controversy among the Aristotelians – indeed it was an assault on the Aristotelian
Instead the belief revolves around the idea that natural causes are sufficient to explain everything that exists in the
This is its biggest weakness, in order for it to succeed someone has to presuppose that God exists. Another weakness is based on whether or not existence is an actual property of something like its size, weight, or color. If existence isn’t considered a property then it fails, but if it is then it succeeds. Then there is the cosmological argument.
Argument Against the Argument of Pascal’s Wager In Pascal’s Wager, Pascal pioneered new thoughts and opinions amongst his peers in probability theories by attempting to justify that believing in God is advantageous to one’s personal interest. In this paper, I will argue that Pascal’s argument rationalizing why one should believe in God fails and I will suggest that even if one was to accept Pascal’s wager theory, this will not be a suffice resolution to reap the rewards that God has promised to Christian believers like myself who has chosen to believe in God due to my early childhood teachings, familial and inherited beliefs. Pascal offers a logical reason for believing in God: just as the hypothesis that God's existence is improbable, the
The biggest theme of The Great Divorce is salvation; more specifically, ensuring one’s immortal soul reaches Heaven and not Hell through the exercising correct moral choices in life and the practice of forgiving others and seeking forgiveness for your own sins. For Lewis, Heaven and Hell are not metaphoric or ideas, they are real places. In the book, Lewis develops this by having other related themes that affect salvation like, vanity vs. pride, love, the value of ideologies, faith vs. skepticism, jealousy, anger, and forgiveness.
The objection is based on people always think rationally, but the fact is people could not keep rational mind all the time. When facing the specific conditions, people could not always think rationally, especially when they face of the infinite benefits. As an example have been discussed, if someone promised to give me a billion or even ten billion dollars instead of a million in order to let me believe there is life On Mars, I will try to believe that because the benefit I can get from the money is much bigger. So when people make a decision with some specific conditions, they sometimes will lose their rational. Same in the case of belief, Pascal’ s view is that people who believes in God’s existence is entitled to infinite gains.
He goes from general thinking and indicates that there can be two different views on how the universe came to be, then he goes further into specifics by providing examples and evidence of how there really is a higher power, or a “Power Behind” (Lewis). In the end, I believe the more effective approach to stating one’s theory with logic would have to be with deductive reasoning. With deduction, one can make a broad observation before going into specifics and providing evidence to make the generalization more precise and restricted. Therefore, when Lewis made his argument with deductive reasoning, he was able to convince the audience with a more advantageous
In this argument we already assumed that there may be possibility that God exist and finally we reached where we started. So this argument does not give us the exact information about existence of God. There are many objections on this argument but still it is a powerful argument. In my opinion, this argument is not much satisfactory. It describes that existence is greater than imagination.
By saying that if you were to drop a stone, and it falls to the ground. Logically and scientifically explained it would be because of gravity. And you would not say that it was being pushed down by a God, just because we do not understand it. In respect to evolution, Dawkins replied. Dawkins replied to Lennox on his accusation that the principles of going from simple to complex is the belief of the atheist.
“Pascal…was interested in the question of whether it could be rational to believe in God even if you think it is enormously improbable that God exists.” I will attempt to argue along with Pascal using prudential reasoning to validate his statement. I will explain what prudential reasoning is and what evidential reasoning is (II), and whether beliefs