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.
In "Biocentric Individualism," Gary Varner argues that plants are not disqualified from having moral standing simply due to the fact that they are congenitally incapable of desiring. In this paper, I will first define the meaning of biocentric individualism and then give a brief explanation of the mental state theory of individual welfare in contrast of the psycho-biological theory of individual welfare. Next, I will recontruct Varner's argument and explain the premises he uses to come to this conclusion. Finally, I will conclude by contructing a critical objection to Varner's argument. To begin with, Varner states that biocentric individualism "attribute moral standing to all living things while denying that holistic entities like species
Lyndon B. Johnson presidency began rapidly; he took no time to establish himself. He dedicated his presidency to the civil rights and social reforms. He started off with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which he had to push through Congress for. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 became a law on July 2. The law secured equal rights for all Americans, to end segregation of public places, and ban discrimination based on sex, race, or national origin.
WHY GOD EXISTS REBUTTAL (I KNOW, IT'S LONG) First off let me say that I do not believe in religion and that heavily influences my opinion of your article. There are several problems with your whole argument, so let's go through paragraph by paragraph. Your first paragraph states that 54% of the world's population believe in god, followed by a declaration of the existence of a god. This could be a form of a bandwagon fallacy depending on how you interpret it.
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.
So Becker’s question of, “what is the relation of man to nature?” (p. 114), is essential because the relationship we have with nature not only affects our survival but our psychological state as well
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.
Finally, the essay Nature states “Nature never became a toy to a wise spirit.” This comparison between nature and a toy shows that nature is
Kant’s attempt to save the metaphysics was to propose synthetic a priori knowledge that Hume failed to recognize. Hume holds that we have no necessary (or even probable) material synthetic knowledge, but Kant believes that there should be another type of knowledge that is universal, necessary and a priori that tells us about the world (synthetic). We shall start our discussion with the first part of the Transcendental Doctrine of the Elements with the Transcendental Aesthetic. Kant holds that there’s no other way that objects can be given to us through anything other than our sensibility (A20). By sensibility, he refers to the faculty of our receptivity of representations in which we are affected by objects.
Kant’s 2nd Antinomy states “Every composite substance in the world consists of simple parts; and there exists nothing that is not either itself simple, or composed of simple parts.” This means that the entire world have atoms which form the substances people see. The third states “Causality according to the laws of nature is not the only causality operating to originate the phenomena of the world. A causality of freedom is also necessary to account fully for these phenomena.”
He synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism, set the terms for much of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy, and continues to exercise a significant influence today in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and other fields. The fundamental idea of Kant 's “critical philosophy” — especially in his three Critiques: the Critique of Pure Reason (1781, 1787), the Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and the Critique of the Power of Judgment (1790) — is human autonomy. He argues that the human understanding is the source of the general laws of nature that structure all our experience; and that human reason gives itself the moral law, which is our basis for belief in God, freedom, and immortality. Therefore, scientific knowledge, morality, and religious belief are mutually consistent and secure because they all rest on the same foundation of human autonomy, which is also the final end of nature according to the teleological worldview of reflecting judgment that Kant introduces to unify the theoretical and practical parts of his philosophical
1. Introduction When mentioning the term ecology, enormous rainforests, wild rivers, wide fields, and all the greenery and natural surroundings are the first things that come to one’s mind. However, according to the definition of Oxford dictionary, ecology is “the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings”. This definition is of a huge importance for those who want to emerge into the studies of ecocriticism, and for those who want to deal with an ecocritical reading of a literary work. The notion that organisms, their relations to one another and to their physical surroundings is crucial when it comes to ecology explains the fact why, when starting with the analysis in this way, one must include not just natural ecology, but also social and spiritual.
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)
