Soft materialists agree to a point but their key belief is that everything emerges from the physical, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that everything can be reduced to the physical. They would argue that material is the base of everything and the mind emerges from the material - this is backed up by the example that while there would be no thoughts without brains, thoughts can’t be simply reduced to the brain as a material object. Gilbert Ryle is an advocate of Materialism and argues that talking of the soul is a ‘category mistake’. He argues that the soul is not a quantifiable phenomena that can be
Therefore, which of these two concepts is more logically coherent? Some would say that reincarnation is entirely more logical than resurrection. As Descartes suggests, if body and soul divide into two categories the body is admittedly perishable and this idea is therefore constant as we have evidence that corpses remain on earth. The possibility of a separate soul is also plausible and difficult to dispute therefore the soul is constant and as Plato suggests a direct link to the form of life, suggesting that the soul must live eternally in some form, as it is unable to die. This is more possible than the idea of resurrection because the souls is not dependent on the body, the theory of reincarnation is logical in saying that the soul passes consistently through this world, entering a different flesh form.
Our knowledge on each of the fields is very limited to make such statements and I strongly believe that science does not refute God but rather coexists with the idea of God. One way to put across the idea of God is the idea of a human being’s life. All human beings are made up of essentially the same chemical compounds- carbon, magnesium, sodium, iron, etc. However, why is it that when someone dies, these same elements, which are not affected at all, do not provide life to the person? What is it that makes someone alive and someone dead?
We see that the society attempts to perfect itself as much as possible in the mortal life because we only have one life before we enter the afterlife. Once our eternal lives takes effect, we no longer have control over what happens. During our life, we hope to influence gods to grant a good afterlife. Therefore, as humans, we attempt to control our actions during our mortal life in hopes for a great afterlife. However, there are opposing beliefs on how a city's existence should be dictated, and Thebes is faced with this dispute.
Since nothing can move of its own accord, and nothing can change itself, there had to be something else which has no cause and had the ability to initiate the Universe. Aquinas said that this entity without a cause and the power to create a Universe had to be an ‘Unmoved Mover/ Prime Mover’. He surmised that this Prime Mover had to be God. This argument has some positive points, in the fact that the natural occurrence of movement plus change have been brought into it, which makes the argument seem valid and plausible. However,
Momento / How is reality put into question? Why does Nolan continually confound his audience? the line “ I can’t remember to forget you “. One of the main philosophies of John Locke is that our consciousness is formed by the memories and experience that we have had. Leonard Shelby cannot remember anything that has happened since the death of his wife, so according to Locke’s viewpoint he should have remained the exact same person since then.
Eternal law cannot be understood, it is everlasting, and unchangeable. Thomas says the whole world is ordered by the providence of God not with chaos. Humans do not have it in themselves to sustain this law without it passing away. Everything comes into passing and is created by a God and has a purpose. Even though humans are not eternal, the forms of human beings are eternal in the mind of God.
Thus it’s problematic to claim that God is responsible for everything in such kind of universe. Another argument emphasizes the impossibility of an infinite number of past events. If the universe didn’t have a beginning, then there is an infinite number of past events up to now. As an infinite set should be unaffected by addition or subtraction of one, the past history should be unaffected if we add or remove some events. Yet it’s not plausible to say, for example, the history remains the same if we remove all the wars.
Their destiny is Destruction” (Philippians 3:18-19), and “There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the Lord.” (Proverbs 21:30). Clearly, The it can be assumed that God chooses one's fate; However, One can change their fate indirectly by acting in a way that would cause God to do something to change their Fate. God, being sentient, would have the ability to change one's fate. Beowulf could be considered a great hero. He fights Grendel which he did not have to do.
Gilgamesh the Immortal Gilgamesh is an epic story of one king's quest for immortality. It was a quest with a low probability of success, but he was relentless. He traveled far and met with the only immortal human, Utnapishtam, who had survived the Great Flood. Both Utnapishtam and a minor goddess, Siduri, advise him to leave off searching and live a good life; he ignored them both. And, in the end, he succeeded in achieving, not eternal life, but immortal fame.