Meanwhile, McCloskey believes that the only conclusion we can reach is that something caused the universe to exist. From reading his article, I feel that he does not formulate a valid argument as to how the power exists or how it created the universe. He goes onto to describe any creator that could exist is either a powerful being or a muddler and is not a god, but an evil spirit or a being that had very disastrous consequences due to their limitations ( McCloskey, pg.64). McCloskey closes his argument of the cosmological argument by stating that belief in either is not a source of strength or security ( McCloskey,
In this perspective, Dao is not a religion as the concept of gods and afterlife is vague and almost nonexistent. Daoism’s main concern is here and now, how to live a pleasant life without causing unnecessary commotion or distress to yourself or what’s around you. It is the natural law behind all creation and those who can harmonise with it will find bliss (taoistic:N.d. Para :1). A person can be Daoist without embracing any of its religious aspects. Dao is an expression of the unity of the universe and of the path human beings must take to join that peaceful unity (religion: n.d: para:3).
This is not true. One can be moral and not believe in God. One who is moral but does not believe in good might believe, for example, there is a creative principle at in the Universe. We, human, do not need to belong to any religion in order to have a since of moral right or wrong. Moral righteousness in natural is not centered on supernatural faith.
Wisdom does not require any kind of experience beyond normal experience. Empirical sciences require experience. Deny truth altogether: subjective Truth is subjective: it’s whatever you think it is Self-fulfilling: statement “there is no truth” would mean that statement is false…therefore there is truth. Subjective vs. objective Relative vs. absolute Way of
An argument against this however is the cause of God. Experience shows that nothing can be the cause of itself. The first cause argument also states that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It also defines God as the uncaused first cause because he is the only being capable of existing without a cause. The second premise of the Kalam is that the universe began to exist.
He argued that cause and effect can only be applied to the world. And therefore gives no justification for saying that it also applies to the spiritual world. He believed that it was impossible for people to have any knowledge of what God created or of God himself because out knowledge cannot be extended to ask questions that transcends our
logical) evidence, and are sometimes based on a single experience or observation.” (Mcleod, 2013) No one can predict the behavior of another person because we all have free will, the decision to choose whether we act or not. Psychology can then be described as the attempt to understand why a person behaved a certain way, but psychologists can in no way, shape or form predict the probability of the same person repeating a specific
To adhere to this argument one would have to accept that the universe is a random sum of its parts and everything within the universe was created individually and with purpose. Ultimately he states that the Creator of the universe would have manufactured it perfectly, in every detail and it would have maintained its perfection as it was divided and multiplied throughout time. From a theists point of view this is actually validated in the Bible, in the book of Genesis with the story of creation and the Garden of Eden. However, even from a worldly view, one can dispute McCloskey’s view by simply looking at product manufacturing. Within the world of factories a certain number of defects are expected for each part created.
As Tanner says God radically transcends the world: “avoid both a simple univocal attribution of predicates to God and world and a simple contrast of divine and non-divine predicates (Pg. 47).” Meaning that God is able to be of the world and not of the world. He is not a being among beings; instead he is the Creator of Beings. He is able to be a part of each person and active in his or her daily lives and still not be grounded to this world. He is imminent to all things because he transcends them all.
He believes there truly is no comparison. In fact, he believes that there is nothing we can compare this world to because, as far as we know, there is not another world even similar to us. We have no standard in which we can judge our world because our world is all we know. According to Hume, we cannot assume a Christian God as the creator. He was not sure we could even assume a creator, let alone choose one religions God to be the true one.