He has different ways to view certain things such as death, religion, and strangers. He does not believe in God and does not think that there is an afterlife. Some people may think that his austism is making him think this way. Most people that have autism can only believe what is in front of them and what they can see. This is probably why Christopher thinks the way he does because you can not really see god, and probably doesn’t see the logic in religion either.
This is not a justified argument due to the fact that theists do not try to definitely prove the existence of God. Several different approaches are used to provide a very strong argument for the
They say that God does not exist in an objective and real sense; they do not think he is a real human entity existing in the world. For the Deist, God is the creator of the universe. God really exists but he does not and cannot intervene within the world. And lastly, for the Atheist, there is no God to bring about any kind of miracle. I myself am an Atheist, and therefore in my opinion believe miracles are impossible as all miracles are by, definition impossible if they claim to be the action of a deity.
Rand says “Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears…” (qtd. The Ayn Rand Institute 1). Consciousness, therefore, is to distinguish reality, not to fashion or form it around a personal belief. Consequently, Objectivists reject all forms of a supernatural or any beliefs unfounded in fact. In the quote below Rand explains why she rejects religion outright, and she believes man himself deserves the attention: Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach.
‘By Definition a miracle can never happen.’ Discuss. Clearly the answer to this question depends on your definition of a miracle. The traditional understanding of a miracle involves the interruption of a Law of Nature, usually bearing deeper religious significance. ‘A transgression of a Law of Nature’ to quote Hume, suggests to many an impossible event and it is therefore immediately obvious why many agree that, ‘by definition, a miracle can never happen.’ However, it is interesting to note that Hume, in his famous argument against miracles, at no point implies that a miracle, by definition, can never happen. The basis of Hume’s attack is that there will never be sufficient empirical evidence to justify believing in a miracle.
He believes there truly is no comparison. In fact, he believes that there is nothing we can compare this world to because, as far as we know, there is not another world even similar to us. We have no standard in which we can judge our world because our world is all we know. According to Hume, we cannot assume a Christian God as the creator. He was not sure we could even assume a creator, let alone choose one religions God to be the true one.
The issues with this option mainly deal with the definition of a theistic God. If morality is independent of God and God’s commands only exist because the moralities of actions are predetermined, then God is no longer sovereign. If morals are independent of God’s commands then God is not sovereign over morality. This goes against the definition of a theistic God which defines God as the creator and ruler over everything. It also puts limits on God’s power.
Free will means that God does not have any set destiny for us. If God were to create free agents that could only choose good, that would mean that God laid out a destiny of good for all agents. Even though God is omniscient, free will is still possible because while God may know the choices we are going to make, he is not the cause of them. Since God does not choose or cause our destiny, we still have free will. In response to the option in which God creates a world with free agents and no evil, a world with no evil would mean a world with no good, so it would be impossible for God to create a free agents that only choose good, since evil does not exist.
Dissect the four-part definition of “sacred” in terms of its strengths and weaknesses. Set apart-The strength is that the sacred is holy which I support and should not be mixed with worldly staff on the other hand its weak because all things set apart do not necessarily mean they are sacred. Beyond what human can violate-The strength is that human beings cannot affect the nature of it in terms of origin and birth. They cannot kill it because of the nature associated to it. On the other hand its weakness is that human can affect it in other aspects besides deathless and birth less nature but in definition they do not recognize that.
Pseudoscience cannot be said as a science because their theories do not come from observation and lead nowhere to further scientific problems. In fact, sometimes pseudoscience “cannot be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable state of affairs in the empirical world”. Superstition is a kind of beliefs that come from a myth, folklore, legend, and religion, where all of these beliefs are false and made from ignorance. People make superstitions to conquer things that cannot be reached and controlled by science and any logical reasons such as ghosts, “God”, devils, etc. They make superstition because they “fear of the unknown”.