They too feel that reason is insufficient to understand the mysteries of the universe, they are cautious that anguish is a universal phenomenon and also believe that morality has validity only when there is positive participation. existentialism just is this bygone cultural
Descartes also offers some doubt into the belief that God exists, for he claims that, “I can attach existence to God, even though no God exists” (44). He raises the idea that his thoughts do not entail existence, however, he claims that existence is inseparable from God because he cannot think of God as anything other than existence. As a result, he concludes that, “the necessity of the thing itself, namely the existence of God, forces me to think this” (44). Here, it seems to me that Descartes is implying the second half of the Cartesian circle, that God existence forces him to think that is distinctly and clearly
Jaspers also argues that, since life is absurd, it is less absurd to believe in a God which promises eternal life than to believe in nothing at all (“Christian and Theological Existentialism”). Dostoyevsky uses two contrasting chapters to argue against atheistic existentialism. The Grand Inquisitor is a story written by Ivan Karamazov. In the story, Jesus visits the Spanish Inquisition, but the religious leaders do not want Him there. They claim that they already have freedom, and that His return will take the freedom away.
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.
Existentialism Many people try to understand the meaning of life and whether there is a spiritual force behind it. This is what is known as absurdity since eventually, the person will not have any meaning of existence. Some philosophers tried to find out about existence, for instance, Jean-Paul Sartre, who does not believe in a God and that a person first live then discovers more about himself and the world (Booker, 2015 pg. 282). Albert Camus is another philosopher who wondered whether there is a God or not and what man was supposed to believe to protect him from bad faith.
God 's existence has been a continuous debate certainly for centuries. The issue of God 's existence is debatable because of the different kind of controversies that can be raised from an "Atheist as being the non-believer of God" and a "Theist who is the believer of God". An atheist can raise different objections on the order of the universe by claiming that the science is a reason behind the perfection of the universe. In Aquinas 's fifth argument, he claims that the order of the universe cannot be explained by chance, but only by design and purpose. To explain this order of the universe he concludes that, there is an intelligent being whom we call "God".
This part of the argument I would agree with the most, as when you try to prove that something indescribable exists you will fail as it cannot be described and instead are required to have faith. Let me explain what I mean: The whole purpose of these arguments is to prove that an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God exists, and according to the Judeo-Christian belief this God is also indescribable. Something that cannot be described cannot be fully proven to exists; therefore, in order to believe that God exists it will take a ‘leap of faith.’ The greatest strength of this argument is also its greatest weakness, as this leap of faith cannot without a shadow of a doubt prove that God
In other words, it goes against the existing traditions, and any established authority or norms: social, religious, political and any moral principles. Nihilistic philosophers deny any basis of objective truth thus, any ground of law to checkmate human actions are condemned. For them there is no rational justification for moral principles, and as such, they do not encourage any form of loyalty to norms. Radical nihilism argues for the conviction of the absolute un-tenability of existence when it comes to the highest value one can recognise; plus the realization that we lack the least right to posit “a beyond, or an in-itself” of things that might be divine or morality
Plantinga briefly suggests the possibility of free non-human beings, such as fallen angels or evil spirits, bearing responsibility for natural evil. From this, he appears to attribute natural evil to moral actors that humans are unaware of. One might conclude that Plantinga claims all evil is inevitably moral in nature, just that it is not in the power of humans to know better. Hence, the existence of natural evil is a mere matter of
The logical form of the problem pertains to the view that “the existence of evil in our world is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God.” This form is demonstrated by the statement, “An omnipotent, omniscient, good being will prevent the occurrence of any evil whatever.” In other words, an existence of a God who has these qualities of being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent is logically inconsistent to the thought that evil exist granting these qualities He possess. On the other hand, the evidential form of the problem of evil refers to the view that “the variety and profusion of evil in our world, although not logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God provides, nevertheless, rational support for Atheism, for the belief that the theistic God does not exist.” This form of problem is basically about the suffering that people experiences in the world which can be considered evil for serving no purpose at all. Though there are sufferings which are considered to be evil since all for form of suffering are evil but still it brings about good consequences, so that they are considered justifiable. However, pertaining to the occurrence of sufferings that are pointless such as the killing of a one-year-old child evidently proves that God does not exist since if he exists he should have prevented pointless sufferings to