Who is Timothy Lucious? I tend to ask myself the same question of “Who am I”? At this present day I come to realize that I am a lot of things in this world today. I live by a certain rules in my life: that God comes first in everything I do, Family is the most important thing to me, and Football is my passion and First love. I am a person who loves football, it has been my love and passion ever since I was a child.
Descartes, and Paley suggest that we can know God and that he is within our understanding. Throughout the readings they describe and argue how we can now the existence of God and the attributes that are associated with him. However David Hume would refute these claims saying through his dialogues more specifically through a character named Philo that we cannot know the attributes or even for that matter the existence. During this paper I will analyze Descartes and Paley’s arguments in comparison with David Hume’s arguments that we cannot know these things. In Paley’s argument he says that if we saw a rock lying on the ground and someone said that rock had always been there that is conceivable, whereas if a watch were lying on the ground that answer would no longer be acceptable.
Lewis proved he was not one for hesitation when it came to voicing his theories about the universe. Carefully manufacturing his first theory with inductive reasoning, Lewis is sure to incorporate logical thinking in his argument for the Law of Human Nature by pointing out different pieces of evidence to larger, more universal statements. He makes general observations after comparisons with different universal laws as well as different civilizations throughout time. Following these remarks, he delves further into his theory that people don’t need to be taught the Law of Nature, but that almost everyone knows it by nature. In the second paragraph, Lewis further establishes logical persuasion by pointing out his “Power Behind” theory with deductive reasoning.
My next paragraph will be about theory #2.
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
St. Anselm and Descartes are known for presenting the first ontological arguments on the existence of God. The word ontological is a compound word derived from ‘ont’ which means exists or being and ‘–ology’ which means the study of. Even though Anselm and Descartes’ arguments differ slightly, they both stem from the same reasoning. Unlike the other two arguments on God’s existence (teleological and cosmological), the ontological argument does not seek to use any empirical evidence but rather concentrates on pure reason. The rationale behind this school of thought
Time immemorial! To think that humans could be so desperate for an answer that they could establish a means of knowing on the grounds of faith, and then stand to have the hypothetical value of such beliefs lost to time. It makes sense that this practice would be accepted to such a great extent. When theories premises are assumed, a great deal of information can be explained because it stands on mere speculation and thusly has no requirement for conflict. The opportunity to observe the origins of immutable faith arguments has long passed, however, a particular claim from Galileo’s own
Today virtually every child grows up learning that the Earth orbits the Sun, but four centuries ago the heliocentric solar system, where the Earth orbits the Sun, was so controversial that the Catholic Church classified it as a crime of heresy (UCLA). In the age of early philosophy, Socrates’ is well known. Between the Socratic method and his line of successful students, Socrates’ makes the history books. Galileo Galilei turned astronomers on their heads when he discovered moons around Jupiter. Giordano Bruno didn’t back down from any of his brilliant and different ideas.
Heraclitus posited the theory of the Doctrine of Flux and the Unity of Opposites by claiming that everything is constantly changing and opposite things are identical, so that everything is and is not at the same time. (Graham, n.d.) By this, Heraclitus asserts that
Descartes declares he has to determine if there is a God and if he does exist, whether he can be a deceiver. The reason he has to determine the existence of God and what he is, rests in his theories of ideas. This is because we do not know if there is an outside world and we can almost imagine everything, so all depends on God’s existence and if he is a deceiver. “To prove that this non-deceiving God exists, Descartes finds in his mind a few principles he regards as necessary truths which are evident by the “natural light” which is the power or cognitive faculty for clear and distinct perception.” If arguments is presented in logical trains of thought, people could not help but to be swayed and to understand those arguments.
Karl Popper was a twentieth-century philosopher that had a dissatisfaction with the definition of what could be considered a “science.” The claim of falsification, being able to equally be observed false, made Popper’s argument of demarcation appealing to those with the same inquiries about the method of scientific progress. Popper said to be defined as a real science, one needs to make risky, bold predictions that could easily be refuted by observation. I will argue that the construction of Popper’s scientific progress is flawed due to the refutations of infinite hypotheses and observational unreliability.