This argument became known as Pascal’s Wager. If we examine Paley’s argument in Natural Theology, we see that it is not a good argument for the existence of G-d. It makes a jump from a designer of the universe to the assumption that this designer is somehow the Omni-G-d without any proof. Nevertheless, from Paley’s invalid argument we can create an argument that shows the existence of a designer of the universe. Through the idea of irreducible complexity, we see that there must be designer to the universe.
Overall, I believe that Aquinas’ 3 ways are not very convincing as a proof of the existence of God. The different ways in which Aquinas try to prove the existence of God just make it either impossible for there not to be a God, which rejects any other ideas or, they make misleading assumptions that are not justified. My first reason for believing that Aquinas’ 3 ways are not very convincing is the 2nd way – from Cause. David Hume argues that you cannot see, hear or use any of your senses to see a cause. You cannot see a cause only two things happening in conjunction with one another.
Perry’s criticism of this Immaterial Soul View in his essay, expressed through his character Weirob, is based on the fact that souls cannot be and never have been perceived. According to the Immaterial Soul View, any judgments about personal identity must be judgments about souls, since the Immaterial Soul View states that a person’s identity is defined by their soul. However, since immaterial souls cannot be perceived, these judgments we make would be groundless. This means it would not be reasonable to believe people we know are who we think they are because we cannot sense and never have sensed their souls. Intuitively, this concept of judgments we make about people’s identities seems irrational and absurd.
* * 2. What are at least two opinions presented by each side of the critical issue? * * Cotton and Devilly stress that Critical incident stress debriefing (CISD) is not explained properly and research has proven that CISD does not give patients the results needed. * Devilly and Cotton also stated that Critical incident stress management (CISM) is also not properly explained in the treatment of traumatized individuals, which makes the process ineffective (Halgin, 2007). * Mitchell’s opinion is that Devilly and Cotton display a lack of knowledge within the text of CISM because no reference to this literature is stated by the authors.
Evaluate the claim that analogy can be used to express the human understanding of God. [35] It can be claimed that one as a human can never truly understand God, as he is transcendent, and as human we do not have a high enough level of knowledge to understand him. This is why one would use analogy to try and understand God and his actions. An analogy is using examples of things we do understand to explain something we don’t understand. For example, Plato uses his analogy of the cave to explain the world in comparison to the world of the forms.
William Graham Sumner is not correct to say that, “The ‘right’ way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been handed down.” These “Folkways” are not a good guide to moral truth. Cultural relativist, William Graham Sumner is not correct to say that, “The ‘right’ way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been handed down.” These “Folkways” are not a good guide to moral truth. Two arguments will be presented to support this thesis. Firstly, Sumner’s statement is invalid as his claim is self-refuting. Secondly, moral absolutes do exist.
The lack of clarification for the term “proofs” does a disservice to McCloskey’s opening. The very things he considers “proofs” to the theist are in most studious circles actually considered “arguments” for the case of theism not “proofs”. It may appear the he is attempting to run it altogether to misdirect the reader into believing something that is not. McCloskey refers to the arguments as proofs and he often implies that they can’t definitively establish the case for God, but the Cumulative Case using the Cosmological Argument, the creator, the Teleological Argument, the intelligent designer and the Moral Argument, that He is a personal, morally perfect being is the best explanation that God exists which is the best explanation for the universe we experience. The claims of science aren’t a hundred percent indisputable or even a hundred percent factual and yet they are still accepted as valid, rationally convincing or highly probable, thus the belief in theism doesn’t have to be irrefutable to be accepted as the same.
Secondly, a postmodern world has no objective truth or knowledge because it argues that the world is so unstable because every individual attaches different meanings to different things and so society fails to exist and so progress cannot be made. Because many religions claim objective truth a postmodernist would argue that it is wrong as there is no objective truth. Therefore they would suggest that
For humanistic and existential therapists, abnormal functioning results from a failure to reach or strive toward one's full potential. In humanistic theories, this is often called a failure to self-actualize; or in some cases a “failure to thrive” that is, a failure to move toward the fulfillment of one's natural potential as a human being and to be in close touch with who one is, how one feels and what one actually thinks. In existential theories, too, abnormality represents a failure to reach one's full potential but this failure is rooted in one's inability to overcome the sources of anxiety built into the existential situation of life; this is an inability to meet life assertively give it meaning, and take responsibility for one's life, Both theories define abnormal functioning as a failure to be and fulfill oneself and the humanistic-existential approach to therapy seeks to help people get in touch with their real selves and then to make deliberate choices regarding their lives and behaviors, rather than letting outside events determine their behavior. Many therapy approaches fall under the
But this contradicts the definition of God. Therefore, we must posit that God exists.” (p. 5). Despite the many debates Anselm’s theory created over the meaning of “greater” and “being”, Crutcher (2010) argues that Anselm’s theory fails “as an argument against non-theists because its premises can be freely doubted.” (p. 5). If one doubts that God exists, they will also doubt the qualities predicated to God. “The conclusion