Those supporting these points have been 19th century philosophers A.J Ayer and Antony Flew however their argument is apposed by those who believe it is meaningful as we simply do not know how to falsify the language. At the heart of this argument stood John Hick as he defined religious language as ‘believing in something and experiencing something’. Logical positivists thought up the concept of the verification principle in the 1920’s while in Vienna. Spearheading this movement was British philosopher A.J Ayer (1910-1989) and his argument was that in fact religious language is meaningless due to the lack of empirical evidence. He said that a proposition is meaningful if and only if it is known how we can prove it is either true or false.
It is also deductive, so the conclusion is the only possible one that could be deduced give the premises. Therefore, it is theoretically strong. Anselm proposed in the Proslogian that the existence of God was true for him by the virtue of faith and logical necessity. He proposed a reductio ad absurdum argument that aimed to demonstrate he impossibility of denying God’s existence. His first form of the argument runs as follows: (P1) God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (P2) If God exists in the mind alone (in intellect) then a greater being can be conceived (in re) (P3) God to be the greatest being, has to existing the mind and in reality, otherwise another being would be greater than God.
For Kant, if an action is performed, based on the end goal or result, or based on the outcome, it is not moral. Therefore the Hypothetical imperative was no use because these judgments were not dependent on morals and they were dependent on outcome. Categorical imperatives, on the other hand, are moral commands that tell eveyone what to do and do not depend on an end goal or outcome. According to Kant, these categorical imperative apply to everyone, because they are based on an adjective a priori of reason which Kant calls the categorical imperative. Kant broke the categorical imperative down into three rules which he called Maixms.
The ultimate law is Eternal Law. These are the principles by which God made and controls the universe which only God can understand completely. We can have a partial understanding of these laws through ‘reflections’. Aquinas argued that we can understand these laws more by using human reason. He was influenced by Aristotle’s view that humans, like all objects in this realm, have a specific purpose.
He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice. Henry David Thoreau’s position on civil disobedience is neither morally irresponsible nor politically reprehensible. Civil disobedience is technically illegal, and is punishable, but who is ultimately responsible for determining what is right or wrong? Van Dusen strongly believes that defiance of laws go against the democratic nature of our government: “Bit civil disobedience, whatever the ethical rationalization, is still an assault on our
And then philosophers such as R.M Hare, Paul Tilich and Aquinas, arguing that Religious Language is meaningful, however I will be arguing both sides of the arguments, coming to a conclusion against the statement. A.J Ayer famously came up with the Verification Principle which states that any statement must be verified against valid evidence. He made a statement saying ‘A statement which cannot be conclusively verified cannot be verified at all. It is simply devoid of any meaning’. And so Metaphysical claims such as ‘God is omnibenevolent’ are meaningless, the Statements they did find acceptable were analytic statements, which are true by definition and those which are synthetic, which is confirmed through the senses.
Since peace and war are opposites and one can only exist when the other doesn’t makes some theist response not very accurate. The difference between defense and theodicy is that theodicy tries to explain why God allows evil, it assumes the existence of both God and evil. A defense is
Deontology, as espoused by Immanuel Kant, would argue against the morality of lying from a moral absolutism standpoint. Lying is wrong no matter what, and any good that comes from it is discounted by the evil of lying. Utilitarianism, as espoused by John Stuart Mill, would consider lying to be acceptable as long as a greater good for society at large to come from it. A virtue ethicist such as Aristotle would look less at the act of lying but more at the decision to tell a lie and what that says about the person in question as a moral being. A person that lies to protect someone’s feelings or pride isn’t
Categorical imperatives leave no room for ifs, they are absolutes, however morality is a concept that is relative to human beings, is it a concept of our mind? Can we ever know the answer to my previous question? Kant believes that there is just one maxim that each action embodies, so we can test the morality of the act by looking if we can universalise the maxim, however there are so many variables of those maxims that may lead to a given action, some of these may be able to universalise, some won't be, and that in itself is a flaw of Kant's categorical imperative. Kant stated himself: "One should only act on a principle that one can will to be universal law". This is how that quote works: If we decide to lie, we imagine what would happen if everybody lied, lying itself would become normal, and the concept of truth (and lying itself) would disappear.
This is a counter to Locke’s argument but I feel it is a poor one as the premises are not certainly true they are based on falsehoods especially ones about God being the perfect being; that just depends what you believe. Therefore I believe Rene’s God argument poses no significant threat to Locke’s theory. Plato, one of the men who influenced Descartes, argued that not only some ideas and knowledge are innate but