Therefore it helps us to always reconsider and reevaluate any action. The major weaknesses of correspondence include; the objection recognizes moral truth, but rejects the idea that reality contains moral fact for moral truths to corresponds to. Furthermore, the logical positivists recognized logical truth, but reject logical facts. What I found appealing about coherence theory is the fact that it explains how scientists can make claims about the very large and small objects using a system of claims already accepted to be true. With this, scientists could save a lot and even move to perfection with necessary going through much protocol.
Calvin, the founder of Calvinism, wrote that science is an art that “unfolds the admirable wisdom of God” (Doc 2). This shows that while the Church disapproves of science, it can still help people understand the phenomena that occur in the Bible, and consequently, strengthen people’s religious beliefs. Calvin supported both religion and science and believed they should not conflict with one another. Bacon, one of the contributors to the scientific method, wrote that the goal of science was “that human life be endowed with new discoveries and powers” (Doc 4). This shows that the intention of science was to help people understand the world, not to cause harm to others.
Through human reason, people become imperfect and in short, human. Misunderstandings and faulty ideas are direct results of human reasoning digesting and misinterpreting ideas. Knowledge, in short, fuels reasoning. External concepts are taken in, where human reasoning then extrapolates and comprehends the knowledge. But what we take in from our senses can be misleading.
They accept natural cause as a viable explanation for how the universe came to its present state. They want to be accepted as men of science, yet desire to be viewed as Christians. They believe in some type of god. Despite claims to the contrary, their belief conflicts with the Bible and its teaching about God as creator. The term “theistic evolution” is an
Descartes’ metaphysics are difficult in that they are over lapped. To, satisfactorily, answer the question: Does Descartes correctly respond to the problem of how can mind and matter interact as different substances? We must capture a large breadth of Descartes arguments beginning with his famous “I think, therefore I am”. For the simplicity of the paper, I shall assume that Descartes argument(s) have been sound all the way into his description of mind and matter. It would seem impossible to respond to the question posed if it cannot even be said that Descartes satisfactorily distinguishes mind and matter as different substances.
“I think, Therefore I am” This quote by Descartes prove that the person exists by his ability of thinking.  Descartes prove the existing of human being through doubting and thinking and he explains his claim by stating that when the person doubt his existence or think about his existence then he exists.  Moreover, Descartes imposes an ontological argument to prove gods existence which states that: god is a perfect being and since it is more perfect to exist than not this implies that god exists.  He also introduce another more complex argument for god existence which differ between two types of reality. Formal reality is the reality that anything has in feature of existing and it comes with three types: finite, infinite, and mode.
Ideas of doubt and skepticism are inherent his philosophy. One of the central places in his work occupied by causality problem. Even though there are many nuances to discuss concerning his personality-I am going to stress on: ‘’Why he is considered empiricist? How his human understanding conceived from his position?’’ and ‘’What are the challenges with this account?’’
His argument is one that requires multiple glances and a decomposition to its base components. It components being that we exist, we think clear and distinct thoughts that we affirm to be true even though other thoughts must be doubted, there must be a greater force that is responsible for these clear and distinct thoughts, and this greater force is an infinite, perfect, all-powerful God. While Descartes built a strong case about the existence of God, it is not completely perfect. There are still more questions that can be asked about his reasoning and certain holes in Descartes’ prior and succeeding meditations that raise the question of “How concrete and rigid is Descartes’ reasoning throughout his
John Stuart Mill wrote that we cannot call God good for he is a perfect being and the word ‘good’ is a word that describes the highest form of human morality. I believe this statement to be true in a sense. Good is a term that has a relative meaning when describing things. Good is from a perspective of the individual. In this paper I will be arguing that the word ‘good’ in the phrase “God is good” is in relation to the opinion of the person describing God, and that it cannot be known to our reality if God is objectively good.
The Trinities of Power and Modification re-expresses Substance within itself through production of natura naturata (attributes and modes). Spinoza continues to build his proof of God’s necessary existence to prove that God is causa sui, a self-caused immutable being on Descartes’ absurd argument of quantities of reality. The Cartesian hypothesis claims that if I have the power to create myself, it would be much easier to give myself properties of which I have an idea; and it would be less difficult to preserve myself than to create myself. What can do more can do less. So if it is more difficult to create or preserve a substance than to create its properties, substance would have more reality than the properties themselves.
What is the problem of evil? What are the problems that J.L. Mackie finds with the freewill solution to the problem of evil? Are there possible solutions to the problems that Mackie raises? The customary contentions for the presence of God have been reasonably completely scrutinized by rationalists.
An Ontological argument is an argument that concludes with accepting the existence of God, from evidence, which is supposed to originate from a source, other than, that of your senses or observation of the world. In other words you come to the conclusion from reason alone. They are formed from nothing but analytical, and necessary premises, to arrive at the conclusion that God exists. A cosmological argument uses a general outline of arguments that makes a conclusion from clear obvious facts about the world, to the existence of an all-knowing being, that is God. Among these original facts, are certain beings, or events in the world that are causally dependent or reliant on the premise, that the universe is depending in that it could have been other than what it is, or why there is something rather than nothing.