In order for free will to be authentic, God cannot place limits on our choices or intervene in any way. If God were to intervene with the intention to save us from a person intending to do evil upon us, this would limit our freedom. Freedom without choice is a logical contradiction. No choice, no freedom. .
In a similar world, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley individuals are not born from parents but from jars. These jars are tampered with to have control over the development of the embryo. In this world, close relationships to anyone is looked down on. In both Gattaca and Brave New World, both societies wanted to achieve a perfect world but Gattaca’s definition of perfection is to achieve a world of genetically superior brings whereas in Brave New World it is to have a stable civilization. What stands out in comparison of Gattaca and Brave New World is that to achieve stability in Brave New world is to have no close relations to anyone.
However, the statement “Kant argues that we should never act based on hypothetical imperatives” is false. Kant believes that hypothetical imperatives can be applied rarely, in certain situations. The principle of universalizability states that if one act is correct then another act, in an identical situation, should be correct too. Treating others how you would like to be treated is the golden rule, so according to the principle of universalizability if person A treats person B one way, it only makes sense for person B to treat person A that way. Thus, the golden rule and principle of universalizability are equivilent in that case.
Cleanthes’s argues that for something to be demonstrable, it’s opposite must be impossible due to a contradiction. Since nothing that is conceivably existent involves a contradiction (impossible to believe in something that has a contradiction), and since everything conceivably existent can be equally conceived as non-existent, there is no contradiction in denying its existence (leaving both existence and non-existence possible). Putting this into the context of arguing that God’s existence is not demonstrable, Cleanthes states that: everything we can conceive to exist, we can also conceive not to exist. Either one of these options is possible (not
Moreover, I would also make the argument given that if Hume argues that cause and effect cannot be observed and therefore nothing can be certain nor suggest any evidence of causality, then in the contrary I would argue that experiences infer causality and that even though cause and effect is observed via experience and inconceivable, there still lies a possibility of certainty, which would make the experience of causality a relations of ideas and not a matter of fact. I am suggesting that his claim is a circular claim in as asking for verification for causality and instead that cause and effect is what the evidence are made up of. Causes are not literal but merely an explanation of the world, not to be confused with our
It is tempting for one to try and obtain more being, however, Beauvoir notes this as living inauthentic. The reason behind this is because one cannot obtain any more being than they already possess. It is also important to realize that being cannot be equated with happiness. One cannot increase happiness by increasing the value of one’s being because it is impossible to increase the value of one 's being in the first place. So, the challenge of assuming one 's own subjectivity is letting go of the desire to be and accepting that you just are.
To Descartes’s first proofs about God exists because He is a perfect being, Hume would say that no individuals can say that God gives them the idea of perfection since individuals do not know what perfection is because “nothing in our experience even remotely resembles perfection, eternity, or infinite power.” Therefore, as a result, this proof of God’s existence does not work. Descartes’ second proof would be rejected by Hume too, because his second proof does not have any evidence, and it is created from any sense experience; therefore, it is just “meaningless utterance” to
One thing I found interesting is that the Big Bang is 96% IMAGINARY! Only 4% of it is real which is insane! Cosmology goes to the creationists because it cannot be proven. The final idea of evolution is Ethical Implication. Ethical implications is people from different points of view on evolution.
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.
Decision are not made in advance. Therefore, free will is possible under an omniscient God. Response to Objections While Lewis made a valid argument in defense of Theological Fatalism, he has failed to recognize that predestination, in any form, still warrants that one’s actions will be predetermined. Opponents of Lewis’ argument would argue that even though god exists in an timeless realm, we still can not act out of free will. The argument is as follows: God timelessly knows that I will do C. If god timelessly knows that I will do C,then C is now-necessary.
It seems like a reasonable claim not to accept anything without sufficient evidence but according to Inwagen, doing so can lead to a problem in which no one will have enough evidence to justify anything that they believe in. Sufficient evidence can either be objective evidence that will convince any rational person to take a certain side or position, or it can be evidence that is intuitive and incommunicable. How could it be that, for example, two intelligent and well informed philosophers are able to disagree with each other on the same subject while being aware of and understanding his or her opponent 's argument but yet failing to agree with it? Both are provided with the same amount of objective evidence for each position but each philosopher
The key claim of Aristotle’s argument seems to be that, if one man affirms that an event will happen and another denies it, only one of the two must be speaking truly. Although Aristotle argues that future contingents are neither true or false. The fact that something is true entails only that the denial is false not that the denial is impossible. This argument also fails, because the fatalist argument has to do with unavoidability not impossibility. No one is able to avoid what is truly described because you cannot make something both true and false at
How did humans come to have morals? Did they evolve them because they help ensure their evolutionary survival? This might seem like a sound explanation at first but Frank Turek made some amazing points in his recent article “Evolution Cannot Explain Morality. In this paper a few of these important arguments will be brought to the surface. Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens have always stated that morality was produced through evolution.