Saint Anselm came up with the ontological argument that only a fool would believe that God does not exist. An ontological argument is hand in hand with a Platonic a priori where there is a strong attempt made to prove that God exists by the concept of his existence. Saint Anselm’s argument is that even someone thick minded, or has a low IQ can state that there is a God, and for this to be possible, God must exist. He backs his argument up by comparing what is imagined up in the mind and what is in reality. Reality is existence, and imagining something up is nonexistent.
In fact, the God Aquinas proves is so far off from the God that thesis believe in, it actually makes thesis very uncomfortable. His arguments prove that there must be at least but not limited to one God and not one in particular. His arguments also do not rule out the idea of polytheism or multiple Gods happening at once. Furthermore, his arguments also to not give us any insight into what God or the Gods are like in nature. There would be no way of telling if he or they would be smiteful, forgiving, loving, or actually have any hand into our lives at all past the point of creation according to Aquinas’ third
To have a goal, or a set of goals in one’s mind is of concern in Tillich’s mind. Outside itself, the concern must not have any goods to make this “ultimate”. God alone can be the ultimate desire of the human soul because God alone is permanent and absolute according to St. Augustine. Temporary and changing are contracted by the objects of creation. Therefore, essences are identical to God’s existence.
So to my wonder, would there be philosophical thinking without free will? Some philosophers, to my surprise, do believe free will is an illusion. Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument, argues that nothing can be causa sui or that nothing can be the cause of itself (On Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument, Pg. 1). Causa sui states that “we can never be ultimately morally responsible for our actions” (Your Move: The Maze of Free Will, Pg.1).
Since there is no divine figure that dictates life, there must be some rational explanation as to how matter comes to be. Within his first principle he states, “Nothing can ever be created by divine power out of nothing”. He suggests that all matter exists in the form of atoms, and although these atoms are not visible to the naked eye, they are still present. Unsurprisingly, this idea is radically different than any other concept of being that the Romans previously held. As a result, Lucretius’ writings were likely not well received by the audience.
McCloskey claimed that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” At first glance of this statement I am understanding the statement as that something doesn’t allow us to come up with a belief or solution, which is silly. In the same thinking one could say that based on his arguments he is not allowed to assume there is no God. Nevertheless, based on the existence of a contingent being it points toward the existence of a necessary being because they require an ultimate cause. Beyond this, the cosmological argument may be limited. Upon a person believing this they will surely be thirsting for more information of who God is.
Skepticism is a philosophical view that states that no knowledge claim is fully justifiable so therefore knowledge is impossible. In my own words, skepticism is more of a process than a position. If you can find another thesis with equal probability of being true then it becomes
All in all, there is a strong belief that these operations should in fact happen in terms of medical reasoning, but as for the alteration of appearances, there is more hesitation among society. If this technology progresses faster than society can handle it could potentially be disastrous. Scientists and researchers have a moral duty to keep making advancements, because that is their job but at the same time these life saving and altering techniques may either be saving us a society,
Due to this, the belief of the era holds that no one possesses the power to define truth or impose upon others their concept of morality. Their choice to self-rationalize the Earth and the universe around them, also hold them separate from the debate over divine revelation versus moral relativism. Many in the era contrastingly choose to believe in naturalism and evolution over God and creationism. American writer Kurt Vonnegut, while not only satirical, was known uniquely to blend literature with concepts of history, science fiction, and pointed social
People almost always believe that the truth is the right answer. However, philosophy does not always have the right answer; which makes people avoid the concept of philosophy. A true philosopher would relish the challenge of debating their beliefs. He or she would state that philosophy has created the sciences (Russel, 14). No natural science would have been made possible if there was not someone questioning an event.
Because atheists contend that there is no spiritual influence or ‘ultimate reality’ in the world, they do not see the body as representative of the image of God (Hiles and Smith, 2015). Purely based on the assumption that God does not exist, the idea of the body as a temple would have no significance for them. Their belief is that there is nothing beyond the physical universe, focusing on the science and not the spiritual realm. Their view of the body, then, would be solely from a science perspective. What does science say about the effects of performance enhancing drugs?