Most scientists argue that "God" is not a scientifically proven cause, whereas Aristotle would argue that God is ‘a remote and unchanging being who allows his world to be changeable so that it can gradually move towards the perfection which he already enjoys.’ A further fault with this would be the principle that the universe can’t explain its own existence, Why is it here at all? Why is it like this? Why isn’t it different? Why something rather than nothing?. Critics such as Dawkins and Russell say the universe is here today due to ‘brute fact’ whereas Swinburne would argue highly with that and say ‘God is simpler than anything we could imagine and gives an explanation for the system’.
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.
Assess the claim that the universe provides no evidence for the existence of an omnipotent god’ 35 marks It is often claimed by philosophers that the universe provides no evidence for the existence of an omnipotent god due to the fact there are flaws in this argument. Firstly, the idea of god being omnipotent, simply means that god would be ‘all-powerful to do anything that is possibly logical to do’, which is an idea explored by Aquinas. This idea would solve problems created by Dawkins who suggested the idea that god being omnipotent is incoherent. Yet by suggesting that god is all powerful in things that is logical would mean that he would not do illogical such as change the past of change what humans believe is fact such as 2+2=4. Therefore both Aquinas and Dawkins would suggest that the God could in fact be an omnipotent being as it is still logical for him to be so.
Critically assess Hume’s challenges towards miracles. David Hume (1711-1776), an empiricist, is a great criticiser of miracles. He has many different arguments against miracles and against what people think miracles are. Although Hume criticizes miracles, he never actually says that he does not believe they occur. Some people assume that he does not believe in miracles but he does not say this he just says you have to be careful about the difference between a ‘miracle’ and something extraordinary happening.
Plato, Descartes, and The Matrix As human beings it is difficult to understand life form, creation, and divinity. There are no specific answers that may satisfy the criteria for everyone. It is just difficult for the human mind to fully understand due to the diversity of beliefs one holds; being a skeptic is all we have. How can we justify our beliefs? Do we have a good reason to believe in what we do?
These arguments seem to create a strong case with the ability to break many forms of the cosmological argument, however issues may be found with Hume’s idea of the possibility of infinite regress which is rejected by many philosophers within their cosmological arguments such as the Kalam arguments and those of Aristotle. It is debatable here as to whether Hume was successful in his critique of the Cosmological argument. However here it is important to note that Hume is not attempting to create an unjustified view of God. Hume isn’t trying to prove that there is no God, he is simply proving that by using the Cosmological argument we shouldn’t be led to the sudden belief in God as the argument provides us with no reason to believe in God. With this idea in mind it is clear that Hume was successful in his critique, due to the fact that his motivation was not to justify the idea that God didn’t exist so he is arguing from an objective view, adding weight to his argument.
In Einstein’s answer, Einstein clouds his own answer to the question, “Do scientists pray, and if so, what do they pray for?” by using scientific evidences and supporting both sides of the argument, therefore not stating a clear purpose (Einstein 10). Without stating a clear purpose, the audience cannot understand what the speaker intends to say, or his purpose. Einstein also does not create much Ethos, because he does not put himself at the same level as his audience. Einstein does have Logos, but he defends both sides of the argument, so one cannot take much of a side based on what he says. Finally, he has no Pathos, because he drones on like a robot, revealing no personal emotion whatsoever.
Critically assess two arguments in support of widespread local skepticism. Skepticism may at first seem like a fruitless field of study, for how can the study of a topic which claims knowledge is impossible provide any greater insight into the philosophical realm as any conclusions themselves are knowledge. It could be said this is true yet discounting this view totally would be ignorant due to the arguments that have been put forth in its favour over its time in existence. Local as opposed to global skepticism differs in that a local skeptic does not believe all knowledge is impossible but that certain kinds of knowledge such as about time, the external world, other minds and of empirical generalisations. The Spanish philosopher Miguel De Unamuno said “The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.” On this basis it could be said that the skepticism is the deepest of all the philosophical areas of study as no true conclusion can be drawn fully meaning it will be explored more with time.
What if there is no level of “maximal greatness” in one world? What if the difference of “maximal greatness” between worlds is vast? Both of these questions and many more raise doubts to the truth of the argument presented by Garcia. The larger issue that resonates in my mind is that there is no logical rebuttal to defend against these accusations. With such a complex and difficult topic to discuss and articulate, I have difficulties believing that there is such a “maximally great” being in every world with no differences between the
“For how could I possibly understand that I doubt, and that I desire, that is, that there is something lacking in me, and that I am not completely perfect, if there were no idea in me of a more perfect being, by comparison with which I could recognize my own shortcomings?”(33). Descartes knows that he himself is not perfect and is always learning, moreover, if there was not a God and he was derived from himself then there would be no room for improvement or learning as he would be born with all knowledge and wisdom and as such not have thoughts about God or a supreme being. Descartes says he would not have the intuition and innate feelings about God unless God himself gave him those feelings. These feelings for Descartes are real therefore he concludes that God is not a deceiver proving his other theory that God is real and God is not a deceiver. “From this it is sufficiently clear that he cannot be a deceiver: for all cunning and deception presuppose some shortcoming, as is plain by the natural light.”(37) In Descartes third meditation he has proven and answered questions that he has set out to prove.