Their destiny is Destruction” (Philippians 3:18-19), and “There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the Lord.” (Proverbs 21:30). Clearly, The it can be assumed that God chooses one's fate; However, One can change their fate indirectly by acting in a way that would cause God to do something to change their Fate. God, being sentient, would have the ability to change one's fate. Beowulf could be considered a great hero. He fights Grendel which he did not have to do.
Possibly, everything happens for a reason. Maybe your choices can affect your future and you can change anything you’d like. This fires the debate between free will and fate. Some believe that the Gods have nothing to do with the way your life turns out. The actions and choices you make will always depict the future for you.
However, the citizens wanted to make their own rules to follow, sensible and understandable rules. Further on Paine explains “the sun will never shine on a cause of greater worth?” I think that Paine is saying that it is such an issue that we should look to reform it in any way so that it is more fair to all citizens. The struggle of having a King or a Monarchy for the people at that time was difficult. The community wanted a more fair and equal government, while the king was not giving that to them. Let’s take for instance when Paine refers to the past writings of another author, Mr. Pelham “they will last my time.” The name of ancestors will be remembered for their great deeds by future generations with destinies of their own.
Yet it’s not plausible to say, for example, the history remains the same if we remove all the wars. Thus our initial assumption that the universe didn’t have a beginning is problematic. However,
Lippmann offers a great example of this notion: “if his atlas tells him that the world is flat he will not sail near what he believes to be the edge of our planet in fear of falling off” (Lippmann, 16). Lippmann, surely, was greatly influenced by Bacon because the English philosopher, likewise, believed that humans were naturally limited of fully comprehending an idea or an image, which causes them
The first way is based around Motion describing whatever that is in motion there must be something else behind it. Therefore it cannot be going back infinity there must be an unmoved action which started off without having cause and the only solution to the unmoved action is God. The second way is based on cause which is saying that nothing can cause its self it doesn’t exist without being caused. To find the right cause that started everything we cannot go infinity to find the main cause and if nothing can cause it’s self there must be an uncaused cause and the cause is God because God is the beginning and the end of everything. The third way is the contingency of the matter in the universe, explaining that there must be a being or something that brought everything into existence.
We see that the society attempts to perfect itself as much as possible in the mortal life because we only have one life before we enter the afterlife. Once our eternal lives takes effect, we no longer have control over what happens. During our life, we hope to influence gods to grant a good afterlife. Therefore, as humans, we attempt to control our actions during our mortal life in hopes for a great afterlife. However, there are opposing beliefs on how a city's existence should be dictated, and Thebes is faced with this dispute.
Another aspect of the anti-kingship argument is that, in the case of the Bible, there should be no king because God had not planned for one. Overall, I feel that in this case, the anti-kingship argument is the best, because it is what follows God's word. God would have have provided for a king to have been named without having to had asked Him for a king. This is another good example of why we should follow God's Word, because if we follow His words,
‘The universe needs no explanation.’ Discuss. (10 marks) Christian philosopher St Thomas Aquinas would have disagreed with this statement as he was the one that put the cosmological argument forward which questions the universe and how it came into existence. Aquinas would have maintained his view as he believes that everything that is in motion has been caused by something else and he believes that this something else is God. He also claims that God is the first cause as he is the one that caused the universe to come into existence and continues to keep it in motion. He would continue to disagree with this statement because he claimed that because everything in the universe is contingent, it must mean that the universe as a whole must have a cause behind it.
And thus Aquinas took this further claiming that motion or change cannot go back to infinity because then there would be no cause to spark this chain of cause and effect or from a state of potential to a state of actual. But he argued we observe motion in this world and thus there must be a first cause, resulting in the idea of a infinite regress or infinite chain to not be a possibility. And Aquinas called this first cause the unmoved mover, or as it is more commonly referred to as God. Aquinas’s second way, the argument for Causation, is very similar to his first, and once again he rejects the idea of an infinite regress or time. Within this