In this essay , I am going to be telling you why this statement was so revolutionary for the time. What were the foundations of Akhenaten's beliefs , and if their were examples from the ancient world of monotheistic religions? '' O Sole God beside whom there is none!'' This statement is so revolutionary at the time. This statement creates the foundation for the statement mentioned in the beginning of this paragraph."
Aristotle is a very famous philosopher who had lived in the ancient Greece time period. He was known as a polymath. Aristotle believed that everything in the world is changing and there must be a final cause for this change. Aristotle wanted to know why things are the way they are. He was an empiricist.
For example, planets could not have put themselves into orbit, yet they are in perfect order and placement so therefore there must be a designer, an intelligent being, that did so. This argument suggests that everything has been designed to have a purpose, even if it is unaware of this itself. Aquinas believed that this designer is God. One of the earliest forms of the teleological argument was formed by Aristotle in the 4th century BC. Aquinas’ design argument was influenced by Aristotle’s ideas presented in his work Metaphysics.
Cosmological Argument The cosmological argument is a posteriori argument because it is a on what can be seen in the world and the universe * The argument is based on the belief that there is a first cause behind the existence of the universe. * The argument was first developed by Plato and Aristotle. * Thomas Aquinas has developed the most popular version of the cosmological argument. He developed his five ways to prove the existence of God in his book Summa Theologica. The first of the three ways form proof for the existence of God and are Change (or motion), Cause and Contingency.
When we say that a thing exists, we mean nothing more than that such a thing is perceived by us. “From all which I conclude , there is a mind that effects me every moment with all the sensible impressions I perceive. And from the variety, order, and manner of these, I conclude the author of them to be wise, powerful, and good, beyond comprehension.” (p. 50) This is the role that Berkeley says God plays in the world and in our minds. The objects we see around us are only cognitive fragments put into our head by an eternal mind. I do not completely agree with this because for God to have control of what ever mind perceives, he would have to be the creator of these minds.
Craig is that which concerns the fine tuning of the universe itself and everything that would have had to happen simply by chance if there was no God. His argument basically states that since it does not seem possible that the universe and more specifically human life have appeared simply out of necessity or by chance, then it points to the belief that there is some intelligent being that is responsible for the creation of basically everything. The numbers that he presented to show how small of a chance there is that all the factors concerning human life’s existence came into line by chance, were all quite convincing. I have always had the idea that there is something responsible for why things are the way they are. This seems like the most convincing argument as to
Along with this assigning of roles, Plato describes the make-up of the human soul and how that predisposes certain people to be placed in one of these three classes. He describes the soul as being comprised of three different entities, the Rational, the Spirit, and the Appetitive. The Rational is characterized by a lust for knowledge. Therefore, Rulers posses much more Rational then they do any of the other two, and since Knowledge is always truth, the Rulers are set to pursue only Truthfulness. This causes the Rulers to be considered, by Plato, as the most Just.
Existence is a part of perfection. While the ontological argument can be approached without the use of consciousness or awareness, cosmological and teleological arguments require a closer focus on the cause and the design of the universe. In earlier years Plato, then Aristotle stressed the cosmological argument as cause and motion, whereas Thomas Aquinas’ concept focused on life having a cause or a starting point. According to his premise the universe is a series of causes and the first cause would be what everyone understands to be God. This concept leads to other debates that mock the well-known adage “Which comes first, the chicken or the egg”.
Moral Relativism cannot and does not accept the idea that an objective moral system exists. If it did, you could evaluate other ethical systems meaningfully. A moral relativist would ask such questions as ‘what do we mean by wrong?’ when making a decision on something deemed wrong. Relativism is in direct contrast with absolute morality that is deontological, referring to looking at the action in itself. A moral relativist would believe that there is no definite set of rules that apply universally.
Compare and contrast our approach to knowledge about the past with our approach to knowledge about the future To compare our approach to knowledge about the past with our approach to knowledge about the future, it first must be determined what ‘knowledge’ is. According to Plato knowledge is “a justified true belief”. So, knowledge must have a logical evidence and to be approved by society and facts. However, to define ‘knowledge’ is not as easy as it seems. 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.