The main argument, and the strongest in my opinion, is the Paradox of Omnipotence. The paradox poses the question: can an omnipotent being make things which he cannot subsequently control? One of the answers referring to this question has to do with causal law. The argument that good and evil must exist as opposites presupposes that God cannot create good without having to create evil. This means that God must not be omnipotent because “he” is bound by logical necessities and there are some limits to what God can do.
Using these different types of language demonstrates a difficulty; assuming that when we speak of God, we are speaking cognitively- assuming that our statement is something that is either true or false and that it is able to describe an extinct being, God. Philosophers have always had a debate between this. Some say that a statement of God is non-cognitive, statements not subject to true of falsity. This led to a strong trial and tribulation to religious faith and its believers. Some such as Mortiz Schlick claim that religious belief is literally meaningless; religious statements are nonsense and should not be the basis of philosophical discussion.
We frequently conclude that by revisiting the dissimilarity we are able to understand how much each has in common. Science is believed to remain conclusive, found via a series of experiments. Presently, religious and scientific views regularly conflict with each other. Mosser (2010) argues“Philosophers, ever since Socrates, have been willing to ask questions and seek answers, regardless of how aggravating they may appear and how frustrating the inquiry may be.” (p.1.2). Spiritual philosophies are often presented in the beginning, before scientific data results are utilized to analyze religious philosophies.
Understanding Dreams One can spend about one third of one’s life sleeping. While sleeping the brain is still working and creates a subconscious reality, a reality that wouldn’t be possible in the real world. One can call this world “a dream”. Some dreams are more memorable than others and often people can’t even remember them. Dreams can tell one a lot about one’s emotions and how they affect one’s spiritually.
All people have their own principles and beliefs, but, undeniably, not all of them are certainly true. But how can we examine our beliefs whether they are correct or not and how can we attain absolutely correct beliefs? In order to get rid of uncertainty a lot of people tried to answer these questions and Descartes gives his own opinion in his meditations to these questions. Summary. In the second meditation, Descartes realizes that none of the human beliefs can be trusted; therefore, we should put aside all of them and find Archimedean point, that is the point we can be absolutely certain about.
The act of dreaming is the experience of situations, images, emotions and thoughts that take place during sleep. Dreams are strongly associated with rapid eye movement also known as REM sleep, during which an electroencephalogram shows brain activity to be most like wakefulness. The contents and biological purposes of dreams are not fully understood, though they have been a topic of speculation and interest throughout recorded history. The notion that dreams have a deep meaning behind them was greatly favoured by Psychiatrist Sigmund Freud who believed the interpretation of dreams were sources of insight into unconscious desires. Another Psychiatrist, Carl Jung, also believed that dreams held significant meaning.
This middle ground infers that there is room for more than only doubt as “the key” to knowledge. Perhaps another key is belief. In this essay, I will examine the Areas of Knowledge of the natural sciences and religion to determine the extent to which doubt is the key to knowledge and I will propose a complementary view that doubt may not be the only key. Doubt is a fascinating cognitive concept. Sometimes it relates to an unexplainable emotional state, yet other times it exists due to an acknowledgement that the pieces of what is presented before us are not coherent.
On his quest for true knowledge, Descartes discovered that his senses alone failed. Descartes agreed to some degree with skeptists; that what we percieve may not be real, that he could dream of what he experiences or that something might be controlling his thoughts, but what he can not deny is that he does think. He is quoted as famously saying, "I think; therefore, I am". Although some rationalist believe that God must exist, there are many people who think rationalism leads to Atheism because you can not prove God's existance through logical positivism. The only way to determine truth or what is real, is to deduce.
Through physical, mental, social, and spiritual aspects Hermann Hesse illustrates in Siddhartha that one will be faced with many challenges as he tries to reach enlightenment. One must face challenges in their life in order to achieve a positive goal. Siddhartha along with Govinda study the Hindu wisdom of their elders. He believes that his father was able to learn everything from the holy books, but he doesn’t believe he has reached enlightenment. Siddhartha believes that the rituals he’s being taught is not the true way of becoming enlighten.
“The Enemies of Reason” “There are two ways of looking at the world, through faith and superstition, or through the rigors of logic, observation, and evidence through reason.” I believe this statement is true since there are those who believe things such as superstition and psychics can help you through life and there are those who base life off of hard evidence and facts. Richard Dawkins does not completely understand why people put faith in mediation and astrology. They are ways of having hope and a way to just relax because we are constantly stressed. People don’t have all the answers to life, so they turn to superstition and parapsychology to make decisions. We have done studies, such as the Wiseman study in Chapter 2, stating that psychics and everyday students have nearly the same results at predicting statements, yet people still pay to have their “minds read” or “predict the future.” It is fine to choose to believe in the irrational, but accepting money is another story.