It is also deductive, so the conclusion is the only possible one that could be deduced give the premises. Therefore, it is theoretically strong. Anselm proposed in the Proslogian that the existence of God was true for him by the virtue of faith and logical necessity. He proposed a reductio ad absurdum argument that aimed to demonstrate he impossibility of denying God’s existence. His first form of the argument runs as follows: (P1) God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (P2) If God exists in the mind alone (in intellect) then a greater being can be conceived (in re) (P3) God to be the greatest being, has to existing the mind and in reality, otherwise another being would be greater than God.
All humans have a set of basic beliefs about Gods existence, which determine our views about the existence of miracles. Theists, also known as realists, believe that God literally exists as a real divine being, and this includes the characteristics, which are intrinsic to Gods existence of omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence. A traditional view of theism is also called realism, as they believe God to be a real entity and not just a projection of human imagination. Extreme liberal supporters who believe that God is simply a projected of human imagination are called anti-realists. 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.
If the teleological argument is correct in saying that God created humans like a machine, then you would expect humans to be perfect creations, but we are not. Humans are flawed in many ways including the fact that we have extra organs, and that our skeletons are not created properly for the way we walk. Humans are not machines in any way, and the fact that we are not perfect machines is explained by the theory of evolution. Therefore the theory of evolution is proof against the teleological argument and that God is the creator of the human race and the earth. I feel that this argument fails to prove the existence of God.
Success of Aquinas’s Cosmological Argument Thomas Aquinas’s cosmological argument is a posteriori argument that Aquinas uses to prove the existence of God. Aquinas argues that, “Nothing can move itself, so whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this causal loop cannot go on to infinity, so if every object in motion had a mover, there must be a first mover which is the unmoved mover, called God.” (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3). I do agree with Aquinas’s cosmological argument in proving the existence of God with several reasons. According to the cosmological argument, first of all, Aquinas claims that, “it is impossible that a thing should be both mover and moved, namely it should not move itself.” (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3) This part of the argument is obviously correct.
Taking Aristotle’s prime mover that exists outside of space and time and therefore cannot have any matter and so can’t run does this mean that we are better than God by being able to do something he cannot. Therefore God isn’t omnipotent. Even in the presence of such difficulties Rene Descartes holds the view that God can do everything; following the definition that omnipotence is a kind of
Rock and Roll: Musical Style or Cultural Experience 1. Glenn Altschuler contends the lyrics of Rock music are less important than the accompanying cultural style. Explain what he means by this statement. • Glenn Altschuler means that lyrics are not more important than the beat, style, and words. Your experience and how you felt is important.
However, I do not find the argument to be that convincing. After reading this argument, I did not find it to have stimulated my mental capacities. However, based on what it has presented, the argument is valid and most of all makes sense because it originates from definitions that provide a solid base for the argument. The objections to this argument do raise several valid points to the concept of whether or not the “maximally great” being in question does have a universal position across all the worlds he may or may not exist in. What if there is no level of “maximal greatness” in one world?
266, that a petition to a Government official was actionable if prompted by "express malice," which was defined as "falsehood and the absence of probable cause," and nothing has been presented to suggest that that holding should be altered. Nor do the Court's decisions interpreting the Petition Clause in contexts other than defamation indicate that the right to petition is absolute. The Clause was inspired by the same ideals of liberty and democracy that resulted in the First Amendment freedoms to speak, publish, and assemble, and there is
The universe may have always existed and that this is a 'brute fact'. However, supporters of the cosmological argument use the Big Bang theory as a scientific explanation for the existence of God. Scientific explanation has confirmed that there was a beginning to the universe,
He has the subtle implication of “Civil Disobedience” while maintaining a failsafe of non-definitive “he should at least wash his hands of it”(paraphrase). He nevertheless correct on all (2) accounts. Henry David Thoreau is correct in that, for the most part one person cannot make a difference in legislation. Also laws are laws for a reason, usually good reasons and they are made difficult to change on purpose. However, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.