McCloskey attempts to make an argument for the non-existence of God and to give reasons why atheism is more comforting than theism. This paper is a response to that article which will address certain ideas raised by Mr. McCloskey. This author is a theist and will present arguments to show the reasoning for the existence and necessity of God. To begin with, McCloskey suggests in his article that the theist’s arguments are “proofs” which do not provide definitive evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they should be discarded. This is not a justified argument due to the fact that theists do not try to definitely prove the existence of God.
Amid this hostility against the student-held prayers, the Supreme Court debated whether this practice violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause prohibited the preference by the U.S Government of one religion over another. Furthermore, this clause declared that preferential religious actions held in public domains were unconstitutional. Although this clause prohibited public religious invocations, it did not prohibit religious practices within enclosed settings. After analyzing the case and calling for several holdings, on June 19th of the year 2000 the Supreme Court decided that these practices were indeed a violation to the United States Constitution.
“Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument do not succeed.” Discuss (10 marks) I believe that David Hume’s criticisms against the cosmological argument are insufficient. Hume’s argument is based around two main points, the idea that explaining the parts of the universe is sufficient instead of an explanation of the universe as a whole and that the causal principle is questionable. Hume states that if you can explain the parts of something then you don’t need to explain the process as a whole or that there may not be a cause there for the process in total anyway. For example if there are twenty eggs, Hume states that you can explain the eggs individually and not need to explain the eggs as a whole. However there are flaws here that make Hume’s argument fall apart.
Dontae caine Lgs 3:30-4:45 4/6/2013 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISSON GROUNDS THAT THE STOLEN VALOR ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL To: Law partner to the current state of the law From: Dontae Reshard Caine Re: Stolen Valor Act as Unconstitutional Issue: Does the First Amendment protects false statements of fact – made without any apparent intent to defraud or gain anything? If so, what level of protection do they deserve. Six Justices agreed that some protection was warranted, but disagreed as to the amount, and three Justices believe that the First Amendment does not protect such lies at all. Background: The defendant has been charged by criminal complaint with one count of violation of 18U.S.C. § 704, popularly known as the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.
They only believe what they see. Their belief is not sustained by literature theory as from the Bible. “The scriptural geologists were not opposed to geological facts, but to the old-earth interpretations of those facts. And they argued that old-earth interpretations were based on anti-biblical philosophical assumptions, and in this they were correct. Buffon was a deist or secret atheist,12 as were Lamarck13 and Hutton.14 Laplace was an open atheist.15Werner,16 Cuvier,17 Smith18 and Lyell19 were probably deists or some sort of vague theists.
Swinburne counted this by claiming that the order in the universe does require an explanation. As some is not even necessary for human survival. Just because we are there to observe it does not make it less unlikely. However Charles Darwin formulated the theory of natural selection which provided an alternative explanation for the design of the world, without reference to creation by God. ‘Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for this existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind’ Richard Dawkins supports Darwinian evolution and rejects God.
The counter argument to this though, is that animals do not fall under his jurisdiction and so the brutality that is nature is out of his control. God can only then make humans all good; which is apparent to be untrue (war, rape, murder.) In effect, Gould has showed that there could very validly be no active god. Whichever way a person’s belief systems lean, this paper by Stephen Jay Gould is a very insightful read into one way of thinking. Whether that means it solely educates those who firmly believe in god that there are other views, or it converts a person to non religious views, it is a worthwhile read.
Americans United. Retrieved from http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/bill-nye-says-nay-science-guy-opposes-teaching-of-creationism Task A Article Bill Nye Says Nay: ‘Science Guy’ Opposes Teaching of Creationism By Noah Fitzgerel Too often, Americans assume that those who advocate for church-state separation, such as Americans United, oppose creationism as a theological concept. This is not the case. This is America, and people have the right to believe what they want. But no one has the right to use a government-run, taxpayer-supported institution, such as the public school system, as a vehicle for evangelism.
94. Romney v. United States fought against this ruling and eventually realized that they could not win this battle which lead to the renouncing of polygamy. While I agree that all beliefs are not right as in the book which states “Thugs of India imagined that their belief in the right of assassination was a religious belief; but their thinking so did not make it so.Yes it does not make it right because they believe in polygamy but it’s very hard to take away something someone belief started from, is based on and ask them to still believe in the same way as the founders who beliefs they are carrying out. In today’s time Mormons still exist and each year missionaries go out to countries to convince people to transform to their beliefs. In the end I believe we can’t take away the Mormons main beliefs from them and we shouldn’t punish them for doing it as long as they it in their own society.
Lastly, he wants to get across the message that the U.S. is at war with Muslims and not Iraq, which I believe is completely untrue. The second article from The New York Observer also had a few ideas that in my eyes were wrong. First and foremost, the author seems to doubt his own opinion towards the end of the editorial by questioning his own views on the matter. I believe that if you are going to write about something you should be sure about it. The author also states that the U.S. is unable to prevail in Iraq.