For Dawkins, the only conceivable theory is that of evolution. We are as we are because of our genetic make up, not the efforts of our soul to guide us towards the realm of ideas each change is due to evolution. There is no soul which continues, there is only the survival of DNA, the function
In Phaedo Socrates argues the nature of the afterlife with Cebes and Simmias, in order to show that there is an afterlife he devises convincing arguments about immortality of the soul and the existence of afterlife. Socrates claims that the death is nothing more than the separation of the soul from the body. The soul is immortal considering the cycle of life and death, the idea of recollection and the affinity argument. And while Socrates’ arguments are controversial, they appear reasonable and consistent with the idea of immortality of the soul is in fact true. Socrates’ first argument is based on the idea of dialectics and the cycle of life and death.
The roles of the PM are linked to the roles of god but the 2 must not be confused. As the PM is transcendent he cannot interact with the human world as he is the greater entity. Aristotle’s concept of the Prime Mover found its way into the medieval theology of Thomas Aquinas and his cosmological proof for the existence of God. Likewise, Aristotle’s teleological arguments found their way into Aquinas’ Natural Law. An accidental universe is as likely as a caused one There are many modern scientific theories that attempt to grasp why the universe is here, who put it here and who created everything in it.
By this, he is rejecting infinite regress, which is influenced by Aristotle’s idea of a prime mover. This argument is particularly seen as a strength as it gives a satisfying explanation to humans, using a posteriori logic – things in the universe must have a cause, however, if the Big Bang was to have taken place, means that there must have been the exact and perfect environment for it to take place, as a simple change the world wouldn’t have looked like it does today. Therefore, there must have been something in which created the Big Bang itself. There are many strengths to Aquinas’ argument; including the idea of his Third Way arguing that all things that exist in nature are contingent; they were not in existence before, they might have not been in existed and may die out in the future. Therefore, it is evident to say that there must have been a time where nothing existed, and something (God) must have created it.
He thinks that Aquinas had made an error in linking cause and effect – as have any other humans that have done the same. Cause and effect are two completely different things, linked incorrectly in the mind by induction. Hume argues that because of this error, there is no cause and effect chain and therefore, no first cause. He argues that we have no direct experience of the creation of the universe and so we cannot speak meaningfully about it. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) agrees with the idea that we cannot try to comprehend something outside of our reach – we can
Thucydides vs. Plato The meaning of a good life can be drastically different depending on your point of view and the way you look at the world in front of you. Greek philosophers Thucydides and Plato were no different in this matter as they saw the world in two completely different ways. Thucydides used empirical claims to describe what he believed a good life was based on what he observed amongst the men fighting in the Peloponnesian War. On the other hand, Plato used normative claims to describe his beliefs based on what he believed, not observed, a good life entails. First off, it is important to note what the differences between these two types of thinking are.
This postulate of God has origin in one’s own reason which would necessarily mean that submitting to will of God is submitting to one’s own reason. The need of God arises because the relationship between moral law and happiness is not guaranteed in this world. So here God comes to the rescue and thus necessitates the compatibility of virtue and realization of highest good. The postulate of immortality is very much interwoven with the postulate of God. Taking into account the sensuous nature of human beings, Kant states that it is very difficult for a man to be righteous without hope.
The argument itself is leads down an inductive route and in itself tries to prove the existence of god, being through experience and though evidence of the existence of the universe, therefore enabling the ability for the argument to be a posteriori one; a posteriori argument starts from experience of the universe and argues by the induction back to god. Thomas’s ideas were originally from the philosophers Plato and Aristotle, whom in the end concluded that the creator of humanity and the world as we know it was caused by a very intelligent being, uncaused causer or an unmoved mover. People whom of studied the cosmological argument conclude different philosophies or hypothesises depending on what their faith or religion dies down to. Thomas Aquinas was a Theist whom of which used 3 ways to reach his conclusion of this principle; his three ways were based upon Aristotle’s philosophy of their having to be an unmoved mover. The argument
He would continue to disagree with this statement because he claimed that because everything in the universe is contingent, it must mean that the universe as a whole must have a cause behind it. Philosopher Gottfried Leibniz would have disagreed with this statement as his key idea was the principle of sufficient reason. His argument was that even if the universe had always been in existence it would still require an explanation, or a sufficient reason. He believed that we need to establish why there is something rather than nothing and to do this, we need to question why the universe exists and look outside the universe as there is nothing within the universe that tells us why it exists. The heart of Leibniz’s argument was that there must be a cause for the whole which explains the whole.
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.