These arguments seem to create a strong case with the ability to break many forms of the cosmological argument, however issues may be found with Hume’s idea of the possibility of infinite regress which is rejected by many philosophers within their cosmological arguments such as the Kalam arguments and those of Aristotle. It is debatable here as to whether Hume was successful in his critique of the Cosmological argument. However here it is important to note that Hume is not attempting to create an unjustified view of God. Hume isn’t trying to prove that there is no God, he is simply proving that by using the Cosmological argument we shouldn’t be led to the sudden belief in God as the argument provides us with no reason to believe in God. With this idea in mind it is clear that Hume was successful in his critique, due to the fact that his motivation was not to justify the idea that God didn’t exist so he is arguing from an objective view, adding weight to his argument.
Also, his so-called adventures are told in a story book. That is not evidence because there is no concrete proof pertaining to his discovery of the New World. For the Japanese, there was proof; the pottery fragments and the volcanic ash. We do not even know if Brendan truly exists, although some would argue otherwise. The next least plausible theory is the tale of Prince Madoc and the Madman.
Critically assess two arguments in support of widespread local skepticism. Skepticism may at first seem like a fruitless field of study, for how can the study of a topic which claims knowledge is impossible provide any greater insight into the philosophical realm as any conclusions themselves are knowledge. It could be said this is true yet discounting this view totally would be ignorant due to the arguments that have been put forth in its favour over its time in existence. Local as opposed to global skepticism differs in that a local skeptic does not believe all knowledge is impossible but that certain kinds of knowledge such as about time, the external world, other minds and of empirical generalisations. The Spanish philosopher Miguel De Unamuno said “The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.” On this basis it could be said that the skepticism is the deepest of all the philosophical areas of study as no true conclusion can be drawn fully meaning it will be explored more with time.
Aristotle was a Greek philosopher and was a student of Plato’s at the academy for twenty years. He left Athens only too return and create a new school called the lyceum. He left Athens again when he was charged with impiety only to die of natural causes the next year. He developed the theory of causes, which were his way of understanding an objects existence. The four causes are: The material cause, this is the material it’s made of.
Most scientists argue that "God" is not a scientifically proven cause, whereas Aristotle would argue that God is ‘a remote and unchanging being who allows his world to be changeable so that it can gradually move towards the perfection which he already enjoys.’ A further fault with this would be the principle that the universe can’t explain its own existence, Why is it here at all? Why is it like this? Why isn’t it different? Why something rather than nothing?. Critics such as Dawkins and Russell say the universe is here today due to ‘brute fact’ whereas Swinburne would argue highly with that and say ‘God is simpler than anything we could imagine and gives an explanation for the system’.
These are mostly minority opinions it like the reverse of the puritan days when the belief in science and the enlightenment is considered an strange and weird now those belief are considered weird. Most people today would be similar to the enlightenment type of thinking than the puritans. They try to use reason and critical thinking before making any major decision and not just follow what other people tell to do. Today we also use science to try explain the world instead of religion which let up process technology must faster than we have before . In the end the enlightenment thinking is what we know to be as a
While Carr’s arguments lead to the viable point that technology is now so deeply riveted into the fabric of our lives that we have lost control over its influence on us, he is not the first to be concerned. According to Carr, Socrates thought very little of the advancement of writing due to the fact that it would force society to forfeit the use of their memory because of the abundance of written material that would then be available. He also believed that people would, without receiving knowledge from credible sources, rely alone on their own interpretation of information and in turn become ignorant. Carr sees Socrates’ way of thinking as “short-sighted,” even though his argument in relationship to the internet mirrors that of Socrates’. Google has “[served] to spread information, spur fresh ideas, and expand human knowledge” today in the same way that the development of writing expanded the mind of an individual in the first century (Carr 8).
In ‘If Free Will Doesn’t Exist, Neither Does Water’, Vargas asserts that most people nowadays connect science and free will and use it to prove that free will does not actually exist. I personally believe that these claims are too hasty as the issue requires substantive commitments about disputed philosophical ideas. Aside from that, he also mentions that science has a different way to explain the detail of history of the things that we know without abandoning anything else. In section 1, I will explain the connection between science and our actions. In section 2, I will discuss why if our actions are casually determined, then we don’t have free will.
Phil 115 March 4, 2013 Apology and Euthyphro After Socrates claimed that he was not like Sophists or Presocratics, he answers the question as to what led him to make his so-called false accusations? He answered by explaining that he had developed a reputation of wisdom, but a type that was limited and human based. He added that it was not the kind of wisdom that gave him the power to enforce his beliefs on matters associated with the Sophists and the Presocratics. Socrates explained that he gained his reputation by a prophecy given by the Oracle at Delphi to his friend Chaerephon. Socrates told the tale of how Chaerephon had gone to the oracle and asked as to whether or not there was one wiser than Socrates, to which the Oracle replied, no.
With each new discovery, our prior knowledge is either being further proved or disputed. Robust knowledge refers to knowledge claims that have withstood these constant challenges and have not been disproven, despite any attempts to disprove it. However, the claim that “robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement” is justifiably false to me, in certain areas of knowledge. I believe that this claim is entirely false in the mathematics area of knowledge but can be true in the natural sciences area of knowledge. The reason for my belief is that the claim explicitly states that “Robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement”.