My purpose in this essay is to explain and analyze the Divine Command Theory. Divine Command Theory states that morality is ultimately based on the commands of God. I disagree with this theory because how do we know what concepts of God are true and what other concepts are false? There are so many religions making their own claims and interpretations that they believe are true. Therefore, how do we know then what God approves or disapproves of?
The belief in Evidentialism has grown widely throughout the people in our world. Evidentialism is the belief that all beliefs, if they are to be rational, must be supported by sufficient evidence. The objection that Evidentialists have against Christianity, and more so against God, is that the belief in God isn’t supported by sufficient evidence, and therefore is irrational. It can be laid out in this way: Premise 1: If a belief
This contradicts the assumption that God is the creator of all norms. (Based on Darwall 's Philosphical Ethics p. 42-44). 2) God created us, therefore we must follow his commands out of gratitude. Again, we face the problem that there appears to be a norm that exists independently from his command: that you should show gratitude, which seems inconsistent. (Darwall 's Philosophical Ethics p. 44).
When considered, one is faced to stand in judgment of his or her own faith and preconceived notions regarding human destiny and purpose. Existentialism sought to explore that which could be known. This for many was enough. Yet others found its principals incomplete. As the existentialist says “human beings cannot be understood as entities with fixed characteristics or as subjects interacting with a world of objects” [ CITATION Sch17 l 1033 ].
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.
The infamous new Atheists have taken this form of argumentation and use it to argue for the merits of atheism over theism. This is a development that seems to be rooted in this new militant form of atheism, and goes something like this: If atheism is true, then I will have freedom and intellectual honesty, and it won’t matter if I’m not a Theist, because God doesn’t exist. If a good god does turn out to exist, he will forgive me. On the other hand if I’m a Christian, I must be sexually and morally constrained, and believe in a God I find to be morally abhorrent. The cost of being wrong is losing my whole life.
However, his claims can be refuted on the basis that, when one says that “no greater God can be conceived”, then one would only be talking about God. The word God is what you call a being that is above all understanding. Secondly, the lack of complete understanding of a God that is greater than any other is the basis of Anselm’s argument. In other words, one needs not understand how it is that no other greater God exists, because it is not possible to do that. It is the concept of understanding that such a being exists that is important.
Not that we have people who hate, but that we make it so easy for people to obtain the means to turn that hatred dealy” (Mcdonald,2016). We as a country should not be making it easy for just anyone to get a gun. The brutal reality is some people cannot handle criticism or seeing things they don 't like, and some people take that
True religion, for Emerson, appears to be narcissistic and egotistical and can be defined as promoting and being consumed by the deity of one’s self, yet, contradictorily, Emerson claimed that as one trusts and worships in themselves, they gain a renewed confidence in other men. The opposite often occurs and the selfish nature Emerson so boldly praised manifests itself when one chooses to focus primarily on themselves rather than Christ. Throughout “The Divinity School Address,” Emerson attempted to justify why the human soul should regard itself as its own god by arguing the “indisputable” power of the soul and its ability to determine everything, such as where it will go after death as Emerson believed nothing about the soul was predetermined. Although Emerson was, to some extent, correct about free will, he misrepresented what little power the soul truly has by implying that, ultimately, the soul, not God, holds, in itself, the power to determine its place in the afterlife. Furthermore, Emerson misuses this as “proof” of why the soul is all-powerful and should be worshipped.
PH2211 In this essay, I will first break down Anselm’s ontological argument with a powerful criticism, and then defend Anselm’s position. Following that, I will analyze both positions critically and provide my own stand regarding Anselm’s argument. The problem with Anselm’s ontological argument provided by Rowe in his book is the problem of definition. Gaunilo noticed that the definition of God as “a being than which none greater is possible” is infallible, in the sense that, the definition itself would force God into existence whether or not it is true. In order to show how this works, Gaunilo proposed a perfect island where it is “an island than which no greater island is possible”.
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.
JFK even promised to land on the moon before the 1970’s so we could’ve faked the landings to prevent embarrassment. Also, the “moon rocks” that astronauts bring to earth could just as well be pieces of meteorites. Seriously, moon rocks look similar to meteorites, but how do ordinary citizens know what a moon rock looks like? We 've never been to the moon! The rocks could have been pieces of meteorites!
For the objections only prove that it is difficult to assume God’s non-existence. In that argument, theists are not able to refute the argument of the atheists they are merely able to evade it. For an evasion of an argument will never make for a valid argument.
Doing this would please both the people that believe that we should completely abolish the right to bear arms, and the people that strongly believe the public should have the right to own guns. Making background checks stronger will make sure that the mentally ill and people who are angry don 't get guns. This will bring down shooting rates because if there is nobody that can get a gun with the intent to hurt someone else, there will be nobody to pull the trigger at an innocent person. If we just abolished the 2nd amendment and made guns illegal, that would cause people to riot and anger many people around the country, and if we don 't do anything then things will stay the same and shootings will
Is this common that relativist are as self-contradictory as this? He later explains that yes, almost all of the view is that way. That is an argument used against them. They are inconsistent with almost everything. They say there is no truth and yet they believe in absolute relativism.