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.
The second reason is that he doesn’t want to suggest that the idea of a positive god can be
Without any other obvious motivating factor, Kierkegaard believes that Abraham’s faith needs no reason or justification to follow God's commands. However as Hazony counters, one must look at other chapters of Genesis in order to understand Abraham’s actions and interpretation of God’s
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.
His answer shows how immersed he was in God's prayer. He just believed without question, because that’s how he was raised. But as the story continued, we see his stance shift. On page 65, he hears this, “‘For God's sake, where is God?’ And from within me, I heard a voice answer: Where He is?
All of the philosophers that we've studied so far have made some valid arguments concerning the existence, or non-existence of God. If I had to be swayed by an opinion for God's existence, or non-existence it would have to be by William Paley's argument. Paley's analogy is strong because of his metaphor of the watch to explain the universe and the existence of an intelligent designer. The weak part of this analogy is that the watchmaker as evidence can be produced in the physical form; the universe maker as evidence cannot be produced in physical form.
Evil and the existence of God has been at the heart of philosophical arguments for years. It seems that evil should cancel out God’s existence. Evil is defined in two ways. One definition is evil as gratuitous suffering. B.C. Johnson uses this in his argument against the existence of a monotheistic God.
The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist.
In theory, he thinks that if God exists then evil should not, but it does. So he creates and argues a theodicy to show that God and evil can exist at the same time. He comes up with the “Free Will Theodicy” which states that humans are the cause of evil, not God. The Free Will Theodicy discusses two kinds of evil: moral evil and natural evil.
Kierkegaard claims that without evidence, one cannot have divine authority. To begin, divine authority is when only one has the power to command or influence others to do orders of sorts. Moving on, Kierkegaard believes his claim about not having divine authority without evidence by analyzing his own given example of how a king is able to prove his authority, but not God. This is through the reason that God is not able to prove his authority through his chosen apostle, for Kierkegaard writes, "... God cannot help his ambassador as a king can who gives him an accompaniment of soldiers or policemen, or his ring, or his letter in his handwriting which everybody recognizes--in short, God cannot be at men's service with a sensible certitude of that
Schellenbergs argument on divine hiddenness, ‘If there were an omniGod, there would be no non-culpable disbelief’. Those in favour of Schellenbergs argument on divine hiddenness argue that if an omniGod exists then that omniGod would let everyone open to the idea of him, know of his existence, the reason he would do this is so he would have more believers. Therefore anyone who is open to the idea of an omniGod who isn't actively disputing an omniGod would believe in him because he would make it easy for him or her to believe. Therefore if God is hidden he cannot
Under these options, one is free to follow his/her passionate nature and believe whatever one would like to believe. Concerning the existence of God, James thinks that belief in God’s existence is a valuable sort of
In order for his opinions and knowledge not to interfere with his perception, he chose to doubt everything. And so, he even chose to doubt the existence of the physical body and continued to stay
Explain what Kierkegaard means by a “teleological suspension of the ethical.” What is his point about the relation of faith to reason? Often we have no control of what were are hoping to ask and we can count on faith to overcome despair, we have to count of faith so that we can overcome our obstacles. One such obstacle is ethics, when in a situation where you are completely faithful and an ethical decision cannot be made, you must rely on Faith.
He believes from qualities we get ideas from the mind which ideas are object. He says that what is real with the statement “To be, is to be perceived.” Which mean to an object to be real than exist for individual must perceived by the mind of the
