Apologetics September 2012 Mere Christianity Book 1 Chapter 1 Throughout this chapter C.S. Lewis is explaining how within each person is a moral code (a law). There are different cultural standards but in all reality each person has a code which all people can relate too. If someone backstabs all the people who have helped him out this person would be known (no matter where you live) for being untrustworthy. Lewis goes on to say that we all have this moral idea but most of us never abide by it.
I disagree with certain idea and issue Rene Descartes argues about in his passage. His beliefs of skepticism at points were valid at times but every human has a right to believe, do anything or create what they want to believe in their mind. To make it feel real is up to the person because we control our emotions which control our mind set to think if we are being trick to having ten fingers or to believe there is no god that created this world we call earth. The scope of knowledge in this reading "Meditations on first philosophy" by Rene Descartes is the truth of doubt. Doubt causes people to believe that you do not know something when you actually do.
No red-blooded theist would accept the wimpy moral intuition underlying the Reckless-objection, and would give God's creation of free persons in both versions as a counterexample. The objection also faces an ad hominem type rebuttal in that no existent person, except for a few gripers, are apt to make it; for if God hadn't elected to roll the dice, they wouldn't even exist, and supposedly, they are glad that they do. Although both versions make the same lack of knowledge excuse available to God, they differ significantly in their epistemological and metaphysical underpinnings, and thus require separate consideration. The outcome of our discussion will be that both versions face formidable objections: the first version, because of its denial of I, renders it anomalous how God is able to create any free persons; and the second version waters down God's omniscience in an unacceptably anthropomorphic
This presents an issue with the moral and rational reasoning behind the deeds. It’s understood that the act is warranted by the divine and therefore the ethical is no longer in effect. The next term to define is the one that most of us would be familiar with and can relate to. If you’re a religious individual or have some faith in the ultimate, you might consider yourself labeled under this category. As previously stated, in order to be a KoF, you must be willing to nullify the ethical standards you are most accustomed to in order to comply to the declaration of God or any other divine or spiritual medium.
In section 2, I will discuss why if our actions are casually determined, then we don’t have free will. 1: Vargas View First of all, in order to understand the whole reading, Vargas defines what free will is. It is the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate, which means that it is the power of an individual to decide or have his or her opinion on something. In the beginning of the reading, according to Vargas, many people including scientists have difficulties understanding free will. In fact, it is really hard for them to explain why “our current notion of free will is an
Either to convince them to do something, to believe something, or to convince them of the bullshitter’s competency or knowledgeability. People may BS without intending to mislead anyone. Frankfurt asserts that bullshit is so common in the world because people are convinced that they must have an opinion about more or less anything and everything and so they speak about things that they really do not know anything about. “The lack of any significant connection between a person’s opinions and his apprehension of reality will be even more severe, needless to say, for someone who believes it his responsibility, as a conscientious moral agent, to evaluate events and conditions in all parts of the world.” (On Bullshit ) This is especially common in politics. No one person can be up to date on all current events, and yet people, especially politicians and others in positions of power, are expected to have an opinion on all of their country’s goings-on.
In William L. Rowe’s essay The Ontological Argument Rowe carefully details an argument that, upon first read, appears to convincingly prove that God does not exist. His argument has, however, been even more carefully torn apart and examined by some of the worlds greatest philosophers and is often criticized. In my essay I will prove that Rowe’s argument although seemingly perfect comes nowhere near disproving the existence of a God. Quote #1 “…Anselm insists that anyone who hears of God, thinks about God, or even denies the existence of God is, nevertheless, committed to the view that God exists in the understanding.” I will use this quote to support the idea of God. This quote does not prove his existence but it does prove that
One intention he had with The Things They Carried was to remind us of the unknowns of life, and that one man’s truth is another man’s lie. Who knows the truth about anything in life? That is a very controversial thing how are we to know if anything is the absolute truth, we only have the experiences, evidence, and our own beliefs to determine if something is the truth or the lie. Obrien stresses that it is imperative to accept the fact that truths can change. Every situation is different and every person has a different reaction to situations, thus as we are constantly growing and changing, the ‘truths’ we have come to know and believe can also change.
All Gods are thus externalized forms, magnified projections of the true nature of their creators, personifying aspects of the universe or personal temperaments which many of their followers find to be troubling. Worshipping any God is thus worshipping by proxy those who invented that God.”
Either you believe science or you have “blind faith” in some religion. Honestly, it all depends on the person. In Matt 4:17 it says, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” With this being said repent means, to change your mind. If you never believe or have faith in anything, it’s privilege to get it. Most people say it is up to you to believe whatever, but then again there is believing or knowing the truth in life.