RESPONSE TO H. J. McCLOSKEY’S ARTICLE PHIL 201-B16 Ronald D. Kuykendall Liberty University Online, March 11, 2011 Does God exist? This is a question which has been debated for ages. Each side has it’s philosopher who present their reasoning for or against the existence of God. In his article “On Being an Atheist”, H.J. McCloskey attempts to make an argument for the non-existence of God and to give reasons why atheism is more comforting than theism.
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.
Critically assess the claim that the soul is distinct from the body The claim that the soul is distinct from the body is a dualist belief supported by Descartes and Plato, but is refuted by monists like Aristotle and materialists such as Richard Dawkins. I believe that the soul is distinct from the body because the soul is eternal and continues in the after life, whereas the body is temporary and decays. Descartes supports his belief as he argues that the body is spatial meaning that is exists in space, whereas the mind or soul is conscious meaning we have knowledge of it. This is a dualist view as he argues that although the body and the mind/soul are separate, they interact with the brain. A strength of his argument is that it allows for mental continuity between life and the afterlife because the soul as well as the body interacts with the brain.
In response to the option in which God creates a world with free agents and no evil, a world with no evil would mean a world with no good, so it would be impossible for God to create a free agents that only choose good, since evil does not exist. It would limit free will, and limited free will is not free will. The reason why it would be impossible for good to exist without evil existing is that we need evil to exist so that we can define it and understand what it is and how it works. After we find out that information, we could base what good is off of what evil is not, which is what we do now with
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.
Existentialism is a philosophical theory that states that each individual has absolute freedom of choice and each has the responsibility to regulate one’s own actions. Existentialists believe that life has no universal meaning thus the pursuit of any greater truth is unnecessary and trivial (Existentialism). In slight contrast, absurdists believe that in the trivialality of a universal meaning, but that the pursuit itself may contain greater truths (Belanger). However, both believe that the world as a whole is purely nonsensical and illogical (Existentialism). Camus’ philosophical beliefs are evident throughout his first work, The Stranger.
The directions religions points at aren’t all entirely spiritual, simply shown in equality matters of prosperity and freedoms for masses and states, the supportive state policies. Jung states that partaking in the “en masse” systems like religions or nations who worship any sort of divine powers cannot be terminated with logical dialogue, you simply cannot determine their issue. because mass-mindedness by interpretations disregards sensibility and train of thought in human beings and approves more of the emotional aspects in this
Plato argues that rather than being taught how to perceive things such as beauty or morality, through our physical senses, we instinctively have a general grasp of them through the theoretical form. In other words, the beautiful things we can see are beautiful only because they are part of the more general Form of Beauty. This Form of Beauty is itself invisible, eternal, and unchanging, unlike the things in the visible world that can grow old and lose their beauty. The Theory of Forms envisions an entire world of such Forms, a world that exists outside of time and space, where Beauty, Justice, Courage, Temperance, and the like exist untarnished by the changes and imperfections of the visible world. Plato also suggested that the theoretical form was never ending, unlike the physical form which starts at our conception/birth and ends at the moment that we die.
Next, I will explain Lewis’s reply about why Knowledge Argument can’t refute physicalism. Finally, I will express my own opinion and show my reasons. Frank Jackson puts knowledge Argument forward. Although he thinks that physical knowledge provides us with some information relate to the world, and help people to understand the world in an objective way. However, in the process of experience, human cannot feel the “feeling” using the concepts of that “feeling”, which is named Qualia.
Miller maintains that what ensures personal identity is the soul. He tells Weirob that “your mind or soul is immaterial, lodged in your body while you are on earth” (Perry 7). Miller expounds on this assertion by saying that the body is separate from the soul. Because they are separate Miller believes it stands that a body is not needed to equal survive as long as the soul continues to exist. Weirob, however, disagrees with this view, instead believing that it is the body that ensures identity.