Mackie’s argument from queerness is founded upon a naturalistic account of the world. The main idea of the argument from queerness seems to imply that we should not believe in the existence of objective values because they would not fit in with a naturalistic world. He is convinced that there are no moral facts and properties, and we cannot possibly have moral knowledge. There are two parts in Mackie’s argument from queerness, one metaphysical and the other epistemological. The metaphysical component
I. Descartes – Evil Genius Problem A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DESCARTES’ THEORY The Doubts about the Evil Genius Doubt 1. Existence of evil genius? Although it may seem trivial to question the hypothetical being, Descartes’ arguments are also phrased cunningly to avoid questions. While Descartes is clearly considering even the most remote possibilities in his method of doubt, all he offers is the claim that such a being could exist. However, this is hardly a solid basis upon which to build the degree of doubt required by Descartes.
Upon reading Pascal and Descartes, I found their stance on the existence of God very interesting, and different. Whereas Descartes follows on his notion of, “I exist, therefore I am”, and by reason he is able to understand that God exists, Pascal takes different approach, claiming that we cannot know such a finite thing. In Pascal’s Wager, he claims that we must choose to believe whether or not there is a God. In this essay, I will discuss how Descartes’s influenced Pascal’s thinking. I will first outline Descartes’s argument for the existence of God.
If God exists and has the capability to be powerful, good, omniscient and omnipotent, why would he let evil be perpetrated? Is a God unable to suppress the evil or does he have no solution to problem of evil? The thesis posited by Mackie that evil exists and there is no God to stop the evil is still relevant to today. We still have wars, incurable diseases and struggles on this planet.
Besides, Anselm supposes that existence in reality is indeed a great-making quality. This argument is what many philosophers tend to disagree with. Most of the dissenting philosophers try to challenge stem from the basic belief that no expanse of reasonable analysis of any perception is restrained to the existence of anything in reality. Anselm’s leading opponent, Immanuel Kant, puts forward the most vaunted critique of Anselm’s argument. He believes that Anselm’s argument is wrong since existence, in reality, is not a great-making quality (Wilson,
The argument states the existence of evil is impossible under the attributes of God. It is evident evil exists but it is not clear whether God exists. The purpose of Mackie’s and Plantinga’s argument is to prove whether or not God exist based on the existence of evil. Mackie does not agree on the existence of God and uses philosophy to prove it. He believes that there is no rational evidence that
IV. The Problem of Evil So far, we have examined only arguments for the existence of God. But for each argument, we have also discussed some objections. Some theists may accept all these objections and yet maintain a belief in the existence of God. Ernest Nagel, however, maintains that not only are there no good reasons to believe that God exists (he criticizes all of the arguments), there is a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
He was trying to explore and research for the good of science. But it is especially hard to do when your thoughts and ideas are rejected by one of the most influential man in the world. Galileo was one of the few to see the similarities of science and religion, realizing their likeness instead of their differences. “Galileo Galilei, though famous for his scientific achievements in astronomy, mathematics, and physics, and infamous for his controversy with the church was, in fact, a devout Christian who saw not a divorce of religion and science but only a healthy marriage.”(Christainitytoday.com 1). He is commonly misjudged as an atheist or agnostic.
He suggests that these beliefs were established at the time that ancient people lacked the knowledge of the world, the science that we are familiar with today. These beliefs somehow survived the acquisition of knowledge while being passed down from by generations. Throughout his book, Harris reminds us that there is danger in considering madness as holy, leading people to "commit
While I found this article somewhat easy to follow, I can understand how some of Aquinas’s arguments can lead to debate or confusion on the nature of God, evil, and free will. Despite this, because of reason and what God is envisioned to be, I agree with conclusions that Aquinas has made. Renick begins by asking the question “Why is there evil in the world?” The answer given by many Christians is that Satan is the reason evil exists since he corrupts God’s creation and history through Eden. Initially, I believed the same thing. My knowledge of the Bible is limited to what was reiterated to me in church.