It does not prove God’s existence; it argues that there must be a necessary being which created the universe. This is consistent with some views of God, however, it is far from an all-encompassing explanation. The argument is not considered to be the end-all-be-all defense for the existence of God. However, it is a good
“Religious Language is meaningless” Analyse and evaluate this claim with reference to the verification and falsification debates. (35 marks) Religious Language is language used to talk about God and other religious beliefs. Religious language is known to be cognitive as it can make a positive statement be proved true or false. However on the other hand, Religious language could be seen as non-cognitive as some statements could be misinterpreted, for example, majority rather than a minority in some cases could act out religious and cultural beliefs within society. The verification principle had originated from philosophers in a group called ‘The Vienna Circle” where they believed that dome statements were meaningful and some simply were not, they distinguished these statements by coming up with a theory called, The verification principle.
The falsification principle was originally penned by Karl Popper and was later padded out by Anthony Flew. It is the idea that you cannot convert a religious beliver to not believing with empirical evidence and knowledge because they have a blik, or an unshakeable belief. A blik can occur within a person for many reasons; upbringing or a religious experience are just a couple of reasons. Where the verification principle failed, Popper and Flew stepped in to create a new challenge. Popper wrote the foundation of the principle, but flew went a bit further with it.
A second strength of Maurice Wile's argument against miracles is that it allows a re-interpretation of miracle. Prayer is not about giving God your personal wish list, but accepting what he has given you. If God was to give you something, e.g. cancer, you would accept that he has given you cancer and not question
‘By Definition a miracle can never happen.’ Discuss. Clearly the answer to this question depends on your definition of a miracle. The traditional understanding of a miracle involves the interruption of a Law of Nature, usually bearing deeper religious significance. ‘A transgression of a Law of Nature’ to quote Hume, suggests to many an impossible event and it is therefore immediately obvious why many agree that, ‘by definition, a miracle can never happen.’ However, it is interesting to note that Hume, in his famous argument against miracles, at no point implies that a miracle, by definition, can never happen. The basis of Hume’s attack is that there will never be sufficient empirical evidence to justify believing in a miracle.
Ayer saw that strong verification was too strict and created the weak version so that the verification principle could be tested in principle and not in practice. And this change by Ayer allowed scientific statements to be verified. For example if someone said that water boils at 100°C, using the weak version this statement could be verified. This still left religious language as meaningless. John Hick questioned the Verification and whether it rendered all religious statements to be
A.J. Ayer agreed with the principle of metaphysical assertions that can not be verified to the point where he states that all statements about God cannot be verified therefore rendering them meaningless. :But the notion of a person whose essential attributed are non-empirical is not an intelligible notion at all”. Therefore one may reach the conclusion that one argument against the principle of verification principle for religious belief is that is unintelligible. A.J.
Rand says “Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears…” (qtd. The Ayn Rand Institute 1). Consciousness, therefore, is to distinguish reality, not to fashion or form it around a personal belief. Consequently, Objectivists reject all forms of a supernatural or any beliefs unfounded in fact. In the quote below Rand explains why she rejects religion outright, and she believes man himself deserves the attention: Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach.
The research and testing is done to either prove or disprove the hypothesis. This research is used to make a prediction and a theory as to why something happened is developed. Dr. E. Stanley Jones states “Prior to the age of science, truth was determined philosophically, by debate. But the scientific method has brought the search for truth out of the lecture hall and into the laboratory.” (Christianity.com 2013). However, the scientific method is only a way of seeking the truth.
All things considered, the endeavor to question these arguments as a reason not to trust in God does not merit endeavoring. In the event that theists don't for the most part hold to these proofs as explanations behind faith, then why try attempting to question them to theists? Keeping on doing as such appears as though he is persuaded to demonstrate a point that few are not interested on questioning, and accordingly is intentionally attempting to set up theist conviction as crazy; at the end of the day, he is looking to start a fight. This is not a scholarly target article. Inclination essentially relinquishes scholarly objectivity.