He argued that they were part of the structure of the mind and that we would have no experience without them. He says that sight, smell, touch etc. are all meaningless to us unless they are brought under these innate concepts. Kant believes in a world beyond our conceptual scheme called the noumenal world which he says we can know nothing about and it is impossible to discuss. People have criticized this view by say that how can Kant know that the Noumenal world exists if there is no evidence of it.
It’s not clear as to whether Spinoza meant (a) there cannot be two substances with all the same attributes in common; or (b) there cannot be two substances with an attribute in common. Spinoza uses the phrase “nature or attribute” which suggests that he meant (a) because a substance’s nature constitutes sharing all of the same attributes not just some. This interpretation helps his argument for premise one the most because if substances are distinguished by their attributes, then substances cannot have all the same attributes in common. For Spinoza, substance is something self-conceivable, however, this conception of substance does not work if there are substances that share something in common because we would conceive one substance in terms of an extrinsic property. Hence, our conception of one substance would be understood via an external property in relation with the other substance.
Success of Aquinas’s Cosmological Argument Thomas Aquinas’s cosmological argument is a posteriori argument that Aquinas uses to prove the existence of God. Aquinas argues that, “Nothing can move itself, so whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this causal loop cannot go on to infinity, so if every object in motion had a mover, there must be a first mover which is the unmoved mover, called God.” (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3). I do agree with Aquinas’s cosmological argument in proving the existence of God with several reasons. According to the cosmological argument, first of all, Aquinas claims that, “it is impossible that a thing should be both mover and moved, namely it should not move itself.” (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3) This part of the argument is obviously correct.
According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. There-fore, energy is not really lost, but may be released in another form such as heat or light. In this form, the energy may be partly unusable. (p. 28) 25. a. Ca, b. C, c. H, d. Fe, e. N, f. 0, g. K, h. Na (p. 29) 26. a.
A scientific determinist will say that any choice we make is merely an illusion of free will. We see the choices we make as free will because of the inherent complexities involved with the mind. Although we do not fully grasp the complexities of the human brain, scientific determinism states that, knowing everything there is to know about the rules of the universe we would be able to determine what a person was going to do. On the other hand, free-willists believe that humans do in fact have free will. There is some amount of causal powers attributed to the brain that cannot be simply by analyzing the electromagnetic-fields and quarks in the brain.
An a priori argument is an argument in which all the premises are a priori propositions. The Ontological Argument for the existence of God was supposed to be an a priori argument. Argument from Design – an a posteriori argument that God exists, advanced by Aquinas and Palely, criticized by Hume. The argument claims that some feature of the world (like the simplicity of its laws or the fact that organisms are intricate and well-adapted) should be explained by postulating the existence of an intelligent designer, namely God. Argument from Evil – an argument that claims that the existence of evil shows either that there is no God, or that God can’t be all-powerful, all knowing, and all good.
Although this possibility does not address the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” It supports certain finite causes. An infinite regress of causes for existence could have not started off from a first cause because the finite cause caused the first and a finite cause caused that find and so forth, meaning that the if you Consider C then you have to consider A because both possibilities acknowledge that there’s an infinite cause of existence. This possibility is implausible because it is already confirmed that the universe is finite and that a first finite cause caused the universe into being. This possibility infinitely fights off the problem of
There are no tests or actual empirical evidence for God’s existence. Anthony Flew stated that claims of God’s existence are empirically empty; this is because for the person who makes them, they cannot be falsified as there is also no empirical evidence disproving God’s existence. Yet some people may argue that God’s existence can be proven through the order and design of the universe. For example William Paley believed that every contrivance found in a watch is also found in nature; a watch has several complex features which work together perfectly to function, anything that has such features must have a designed; ergo it must have a designer. The universe is like the watch in the sense that it has complex features that work together perfectly; therefore the universe like the watch must have been designed.
But is this enough to dismiss the fact that human beings are not a unique species created by God. I totally disagree. I believe the mere fact that humans have the ability to reflect, envision, craft and learn from their past experiences is what sets them apart from other species on the earth. As humans, we are the only species who is capable of generating advanced technologies on a large scale and gaining scientific knowledge of ourselves and the world we live in (Benchmarks, 2009). Another feature humans encompass that is distinctive from other living organisms is their unnatural behaviour.
Compatibilists believe that is the most correct thing to do. I believe that in order to have the idea of free will, you need to be free from certain constraints. Freedom is simply the idea of not being tied down physically or mentally to certain things. You have the ability to choose what you want to