“Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument do not succeed.” Discuss (10 marks) I believe that David Hume’s criticisms against the cosmological argument are insufficient. Hume’s argument is based around two main points, the idea that explaining the parts of the universe is sufficient instead of an explanation of the universe as a whole and that the causal principle is questionable. Hume states that if you can explain the parts of something then you don’t need to explain the process as a whole or that there may not be a cause there for the process in total anyway. For example if there are twenty eggs, Hume states that you can explain the eggs individually and not need to explain the eggs as a whole. However there are flaws here that make Hume’s argument fall apart.
McCloskey attempts to make an argument for the non-existence of God and to give reasons why atheism is more comforting than theism. This paper is a response to that article which will address certain ideas raised by Mr. McCloskey. This author is a theist and will present arguments to show the reasoning for the existence and necessity of God. To begin with, McCloskey suggests in his article that the theist’s arguments are “proofs” which do not provide definitive evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they should be discarded. This is not a justified argument due to the fact that theists do not try to definitely prove the existence of God.
Open Roads Peter van Inwagen thinks a compatibilists position is confusing, considering that it should be reason and logic how “choices” of an individual will determine free will and how it is that they define free will and a physically possible choice may determine an outcome. It is not clear when free will and determinism are compatible. For this, Inwagen demonstrates two views to understand and clear the confusion about compatibilist position. He says the easiest view to understand is the first one that gives a clear idea about futures that do not have a physically possible connection with the present are “open” to and individual. Second view is more difficult because compatibilist talk about reasonable futures.
These issues arise due to the question; if God is all knowing and all loving, should He not then stop suffering from happening? The subject of evil and suffering provides an inconsistency with the traditional image of God and His attributes. Someone whom acknowledged and illustrated this inconsistency is Hume, in the form of Hume’s inconsistent triad. With this Hume viewed God’s attributes; omnipotence and omni-benevolence, and that evil exists. Hume concluded that the three points are inconsistent.
He based his argument on the statement “Does God will something because it is good or is something good because it is willed by God?” There are two ‘horns’ to this argument which stem from the statement; these both critiques of the link between religion and morality. Horn one questions “Does God command x because it is good.” This argument suggests that God is inferior to good, or perhaps good could even be temporally prior to God. In addition both God’s omnipotence and omniscience are damaged; he cannot claim full responsibility for creating the world and therefore cannot possibly have full control as it is not his creation. He also may not have the knowledge of right and wrong if it is independent of him. An independent good takes away from religious motivation to do good, we can be good for the sake of being good as opposed to seeking eschatological reward, for example going to heaven in the afterlife.
This question has been debated over since the beginnings of philosophical thought and continues to persist to this day. Many philosophers have contemplated this question and come to varying conclusions, spanning range from moral reasoning being purely a matter of feelings and passions to that it purely a matter of the intellect. The crux of the question, apathetic to whatever your personal beliefs may be, lies with the implications of the answer. The practical consequences that are derived from the distinction between these two opposing viewpoints are of paramount importance for assessing the values of human life. If moral judgments are solely based upon pure reason then they must necessarily be either right or wrong, true or false.
Is what Socrates says in Crito about the obligation to obey the laws inconsistent with what he says in Apology? In Crito, Socrates’ view of one’s obligation to obey the state-mandated law was profoundly inconsistent against the view he fervently expressed in his defense in Apology, in which he argued that divine law is inherently superior to the law created by men. These two opposing interpretations are problematic and largely contradicting and therefore could not be reconciled given by the strong objections he presented in Apology and throughout his defense and the necessity to obey the city laws in Crito. This paper would elucidate his inconsistent views in Crito and Apology and argue in which law should he follow given his stance on what’s constitute piety and harm. “Men of Athens, I am grateful and I am your friend, but I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath, I shall not cease to practice philosophy (Apology, 29d).” He made an emphatic hierarchical distinction between these two laws in which he argued that divine law should dictate one’s moral compass and must take precedence over the laws mandated by men.
The Bible cannot be solved with simplistic answers; and if, a person question the Bible’s authority then or she will doubt the Bible’s revelation authority. 1 The Bible and Myths: Chapter One John Oswalt in his book The Bible among the Myths shares many truths about the myths that surrounds the Bible. Many of the myths that encompass the Bible are from a person’s lack of knowledge of not knowing the definitions, and the proper use of words. Understanding the Word plays an important role in the understanding of the validity of scriptures. Greek philosophers of the seventh through the third century BC have introduced that this is a universe and not a polyverse.
This demarcating of science is a definite way to distinguish the difference between true science and pseudo-science. Before diving into the details of the criterion of demarcation, it is crucial to first understand the significance of demarcating science. In the simplest of reasoning, science is a study based on factuality (it is important to point out that scientific conclusions are however not based on absolute certainty, something I will touch on later). There is a specific process and order in which scientific experiments are conducted, the scientific method, and conclusions are gathered based on very tedious and detail-oriented procedures. That is one of the main reasons why that which is labeled a “science” has a certain level of credibility attached to it.
The following quote from Bertrand Russell demonstrates it: "The question how knowledge should be defined is perhaps the most important and difficult one with which we shall deal. This may seem surprising: at first sight it might be thought that knowledge might be defined as belief which is in agreement with the facts. The trouble is that no one knows what a belief is, what a fact is, and what sort of agreement between them would make a belief true." I agree with the quote cited above as truth for one is not necessary the same for another. However the term must be defined in order to proceed further.