According to him, there must be as much reality or perfection in the cause of anything as in the effect. Moreover, he believed that the notion of God represents something so ideal that he could not have been the cause of this idea. I believe that Descartes arguments are not really such convincing because of the following reasons which I would like to point out. We may all come to this point and consider that we all exist; however, it’s not completely true because Descartes had an idea of the perfect being in his mind, but I surely don't have such an idea. Now what am I to believe?
The idea of this has partially to do with the fact that Sartre was an atheist. He did not believe that there was any higher power or God that put humans on Earth. Because of this, humans do not discover their meaning but rather create it themselves. This philosophy is a more optimistic philosophy regarding existentialism and is good to follow because it shows that human beings are able to get the meaning that they want out of their own life instead of following a meaning that has been forced upon them since before birth. It also lets humans be responsible for the decisions they make.
Albert Camus is a on of a working-class family, He was born in Algeria in 1913, in an extreme poverty area. He spent his younger years of his life in North Africa, where he worked at various jobs in the weather bureau, in an automobile-accessory firm, in a shipping company to help pay for his courses at the University of Algiers. Albert Camus then started journalism as a career. He finished early schooling, majoring in philosophy with a goal to teach. He was married to Simone in 1934 and divorced in 1936.
His mother was of Spanish descent and was half-deaf. His father Lucien, a poor agricultural worker, died in the Battle of the Marne in 1914 during World War I. In 1923, Camus was accepted into the University of Algiers. Camus joined the French Communist Party in the spring of 1935, because he wanted to fight inequalities between Europeans and natives in Algeria. Although he did not suggest he was a Marxist, but as he said "we might see communism as a springboard and asceticism that prepares the ground for more spiritual activities.
As a result, he lost his chair in 1823 (or, as the university officially declared, it was "very glad to allow this interesting scientist to take a rest from heavy teaching duties, in order to be able to give better attention to his researches") Eventually, King Charles Albert granted a Constitution (Statuto Albertino) in 1848. Well before this, Avogadro had been recalled to the university in Turin in 1833, where he taught for another twenty years. Little is known about Avogadro's private life, which appears to have been sober and religious. He married Felicita Mazzé and had six children. Some historians suggest that he sponsored some Sardinian revolutionaries, who were stopped by the announcement of Charles Albert's constitution.
When 17, he left the church and claimed that he had seen though the hypocrisy of religion and he no longer believe in religion. However, this experience brought him a great influence, which reflected in his writing. He later worked as a waiter and servant in the so called Industrial World, and wrote book review and essay in sparetime. In 1944, he met Richard Wright, a man who helped and encouraged him to write. 1948,he left for Europe and Paris, after Wright.
(1) what was the author’s thesis? Banning the burqa is without doubt a terrible assault on the ideal of religious liberty. It is the sign of a desperate society. No one wishes for things to have come so far that it is necessary. But they have, and it is.
If God breaks this, then he is not being omnibenevolent (all good), which is another of his attributes. However lust is far from morally right, so God cannot experience it. Leading on from that, since God is confined to being morally perfect, he has no choice whether he is or not, he can’t be omnipotent. Another aspect of this argument is can God fear? We are either scared of the unknown (e.g death) or something more powerful than ourselves (e.g lions).
Recognising this reaffirms that God is more than we can ever imagine – he is ineffable, can never be described so we cannot say what they are not. Strengths of via negativa are that it allows things to be said about God without implying that the finite (humans) can grasp the infinite (God), it also asserts the claims of revelation, that God is good and then recognises goodness to be a human word and so must be negated by saying too that God is not good to
He believed that life is meaningless and that we have no souls, so we should therefore grasp everything that the world has to offer whilst we can as there is no chance of an afterlife in his perspective. Neitzche also said that everyone should strive to seek pleasure and success wherever it could be found, he also thought religious beliefs to be false. But what did Neitzche mean by God is ‘dead’? He felt that religious outlook is no longer credible for the modern intellectual person. He meant that humans had advanced their understanding of the natural world enough to realize that the literal teachings of the religions that espoused God were not true.