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.
Didion’s thoughts on how grief approaches us shows that grief just comes out of the ordinary, and when it comes it does not compliment our anticipations nor does it inform us that it is approaching. Gilbert’s supporting ideas on imagination elaborate on Didion’s perspective on expectation and reveals that we must be prepared for the worst, and since we can not predict future outcomes we should “practice” accepting and rejecting the outcomes we believe will occur. Didion states “Grief, when it comes, is nothing we expect it to be (Didion 10).” Didion explains, that what we expect is nothing compared to what actually happens. We can’t necessarily predict the Sheikh 2 outcome of a certain event, such as grief. As Didion explains, our expectations don’t always match up to what grief has to offer, Gilbert’s supporting claims relate to Didion’s feelings on expectations.
Aquinas also presented an objection to Anselm’s ontological argument. He argued that the ontological argument is invalid as we cannot define God ‘for the human mind does not have an intuition of the essence of God’. Aquinas rejects that there can be
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.
Therefore people may think what they're doing is right in their certain situation but in reality they are actually in the wrong. Also this conveys there is no convincing reason as to why people should be good as relativist thinker Mackie says there are no objective values rightness and wrongness do not exist in the world. alternatively this statement proposes that relativist have not defined what is right or wrong so therefore the relativist theory cannot provide a convincing reason as to why people should be good because they do not have a definition at all of what is right or wrong and they clearly recognise that there are different perspectives of what is right or wrong. No two people may agree on judgement, Sumner a cultural relativist suggests that ancestors have passed down traditions and they are just an experience of their culture. This conveys that there is no convincing reason as to why people should be good because if there cultural says they should do something that is morally wrong, for example killing someone to use them as a sacrifice then in their eyes they are not doing anything wrong they are just following their culture and it doesn't convince them to be good.
Therefore he said, by Anselm's logic, we can go on to say that for this island to exist in our minds, it must be inferior because it only exists in our minds. So, it must exist in reality. However, there is no such island in reality. Gaunilo states that we cannot bring an object into existence by defining it as superior because Anselm makes an illegitimate jump from existence in the mind to existence in reality. However, this was seen as a weak, invalid argument to Anselm.
McCloskey attempts to make an argument for the non-existence of God and to give reasons why atheism is more comforting than theism. This paper is a response to that article which will address certain ideas raised by Mr. McCloskey. This author is a theist and will present arguments to show the reasoning for the existence and necessity of God. To begin with, McCloskey suggests in his article that the theist’s arguments are “proofs” which do not provide definitive evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they should be discarded. This is not a justified argument due to the fact that theists do not try to definitely prove the existence of God.
In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.
“For there are two main obstacles to gaining knowledge of affairs: modesty, which throws the mind into confusion; and fear, which keeps people from undertaking noble exploits once the danger becomes apparent. But folly removes these hindrances in a fine fashion”(42) Naturally given the nature of Folly the answer is herself. But Folly as an answer to attaining wisdom is paradoxical. To overcome the parameters of gaining knowledge she embraces the very opposite. It doesn’t attempt to solve the problem of knowledge, it just distracts from it.
It’s not clear as to whether Spinoza meant (a) there cannot be two substances with all the same attributes in common; or (b) there cannot be two substances with an attribute in common. Spinoza uses the phrase “nature or attribute” which suggests that he meant (a) because a substance’s nature constitutes sharing all of the same attributes not just some. This interpretation helps his argument for premise one the most because if substances are distinguished by their attributes, then substances cannot have all the same attributes in common. For Spinoza, substance is something self-conceivable, however, this conception of substance does not work if there are substances that share something in common because we would conceive one substance in terms of an extrinsic property. Hence, our conception of one substance would be understood via an external property in relation with the other substance.