Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Clarke and the existence of god
David hume's priori argument
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Clarke and the existence of god
David hume's priori argument
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Clarke and the existence of god
Hambourger’s argument from design argues for the existence of god based on the perceived evidence of deliberate design in the world/universe. To further elaborate on the concepts he uses, Hambourger uses three main concepts; determinism, chance, and mere hap. Hambourger’s argument from design claims that though many things occur by chance, there are some things which we cannot simply accept to have happened by chance, and must therefore have some common explanation in the causal chain of events connecting the two events. For instance the universe is created by many states of affairs coming together. If some slight changes had occurred, the end result could have been vastly different than it currently is.
For this disputation, I had the pleasure of arguing against the topic of be it resolved that you can convince a non-believer to affirm the existence of God using philosophical arguments. As the opposing side, Sarah and I counter argued the following: the argument from motion, the ontological argument, Pascal’s Wager, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument. The argument from motion argues that it is only possible to experience that which exists, and people experience God, therefore God must exist; however it can be counter argued that since faith cannot be demonstrated or experienced, as it is unseen, God cannot exist.
Furthermore, if God were ethically flawless, then unquestionably God would want to do something about all the evil and suffering. But, yet there are still countless instances of evil that fills our world. Concluding, since God does not prevent or eliminate all unnecessary suffering, logically, God does not exist. Hume concludes that if you want to make sense of all the evil randomness of the universe with the sense of God’s attributes, “You must prove these pure, unmixed, and uncontrollable attributes from the present mixed and confused phenomena, and from these alone. A hopeful undertaking!”
Both sides of the God debate, for the existence of god and against the existence of god, made very compelling points. In my opinion the strongest point made by Dr. William Lane Craig, who was in favor of the existence of god, was the, “fine tuning” argument. The argument is basically that the laws of nature were made almost perfectly for humans and the universe to exist and being that way is so improbable that the universe must have been intelligently designed by a god rather than being because of physical necessity or chance. I thought this was the strongest point because he bolstered his argument with not only sound logic but also statistics. Dr. Austin Dacey attempted to rebut this point by saying science has yet to discover a fundamental theory to describe why certain laws of nature are fine tuned for human existence.
3x5: Clarke and Bellamy 's Argument A lot of people are upset about Clarke and Bellamy 's scene in 3x5 when Clarke sneaks into Arkadia to talk to Bellamy. The main thing I 've seen is people calling Bellamy abusive when he yelled at Clarke about her leaving them, him bringing up "things of the past", and him playing her emotions before handcuffing her to the table to bring her to Pike. While I agree with others that that move was wrong and manipulative, I 'm curious as to why everyone is so hell bent on Bellamy suppressing his emotions, especially when everything he said was true. It doesn 't matter that Clarke was over it, that she put it in the past, becase Clarke isn 't the only person that matters. Problems don 't just disappear for
Even thought, he said God’s existence can’t be proven, yet he still said “God’s existence I mean that I propose to prove that the unknown, which exist is God” (page 421). He is believing in the existence of God, but just like he can’t prove it he decided to name it the unknown, but my question to him would be “why to make him unknown and not real?”. Finally,
JL Mackie was persuasive in his argument by showing that belief in an almighty God is not rational. He proves this by posing the problem of evil. According to JL Mackie, if God exists and is omniscient, omnipotent, and good then evil would not exist. However, evil exists in this world, sometimes in the form of undeserved suffering (diseases that affect humans, earthquakes, famines ...) and others perpetrated by man (murders, wars ...). If God exists and has the capability to be powerful, good, omniscient and omnipotent, why would he let evil be perpetrated?
But Moore’s argument does, in fact, beg the question. The issue is either whether or not an external world exists, or whether or not we can know an external world exists. Suppose the former is the issue. In asserting ‘here is a hand,’ Moore is taking the word ‘hand’ to refer to an object that exists outside his mind. That is, he asserting that there is an object in the external world.
Philosopher William Rowe agrees with Plantinga that propositions — that evil exists, God is omnipotent, and God is wholly good — is not logically inconsistent. Rowe does not believe it is impossible to allow God and his properties to exist along with evil. He takes a different route by focusing more on certain kinds of evil which evidently exist in the world, and not so much on the inconsistencies of the theist doctrines. This certain evil, in Rowe’s point of view, will show that a God who is all powerful and wholly good does not exist after all.
Hume’s views on causation stem from his own form of the distinctions between knowledge and belief, called “relations of ideas and matters of fact” (Morris, 2001). Relations of ideas are a priori and their truth can be determined simply by reason and does not depend on the existence of any particular thing. The example that is provided is: “The interior angles of a Euclidean triangle sum to 180 degrees” (2001). Simply by virtue of being a triangle, it is true that the interior angles must be 180 degrees, and does not require that a triangle exist naturally. On the other hand, matters of facts depend on the manner of the existent world.
Descartes, and Paley suggest that we can know God and that he is within our understanding. Throughout the readings they describe and argue how we can now the existence of God and the attributes that are associated with him. However David Hume would refute these claims saying through his dialogues more specifically through a character named Philo that we cannot know the attributes or even for that matter the existence. During this paper I will analyze Descartes and Paley’s arguments in comparison with David Hume’s arguments that we cannot know these things. In Paley’s argument he says that if we saw a rock lying on the ground and someone said that rock had always been there that is conceivable, whereas if a watch were lying on the ground that answer would no longer be acceptable.
Faith is unprovable and therefore, from a philosopher’s point of view, unimportant. The study of the nature of being or existence is called “ontology” and various arguments of this study are known as “ontological arguments”. The argument here is whether God’s existence can be supported by reasoning or not. Although
While there are many arguments for the existence of God, as well as arguments against His existence, Pascal 's argument is the most basic and relatable. Pascal explains his wager theory as a wager where you’re better off betting that God exists rather than not due to a bigger reward. When you believe that God exists, and you’re right, you gain eternal life; if you’re wrong you lose nothing. In contrast, if you bet against God, and you’re wrong, you miss out on the eternal life that you could’ve had. While further explaining his theory, this paper will explore his theory with different religions and different Gods as opposed to an Abrahamic God which we assume Pascal is talking about; this paper will analyze different Gods and different wagers and decide, if
Argument for the existence of god is being proposed in several ways. Some based on science while some are about personal experience and some on philosophical arguments such as ontological arguments, first cause arguments, arguments based on deign, moral arguments. Each of these support conception. Ontological argument say that if you inculcate the idea of god , we can see him . There is a saying that “Nothing comes from Nothing but something comes from something”.
Mike Allan S. Nillo BS Physics Comm 1 C Then his wife said to him, “Are you still unshaken in your integrity? Curse God and die!” But he answered, “. . . If we accept good from God, shall we not accept evil?” (Job 2:9-10)