A Response To Philonous Argument For The Existence Of God

The debate was immense for several reasons, one of utmost importance is that it meets the assertion that Christianity can be reasoned logically and rationally. In this debate, Thomas Warren uses the same tools of logic and rationality employed by atheists and agnostics to respond to and defeat Anthony Flew

The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The problem of evil provides the strongest argument against the existence of God, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to explain the problem of evil, examine the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.

Part XI begins with Philo’s breakdown of what are, in his perspective, the four causes of natural evil. These causes, in Philo’s opinion, disprove the existence of an omnipotent and infinitely good god, for if god was all-good and all-powerful, then these grounds would not exist in our universe. INSERT CITATION Once he gives his reasoning for how these causes disprove an omnipotent and infinitely good god, Philo then states what he believes these four causes to be.

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

The idea of a divine, omnipotent being had always been accepted through the eyes of the public since the first human civilization. However, the development of science has made philosophers rethink the belief in the existence of a god. William Rowe provided evidence to prove his case about how all the evil and suffering on earth makes atheism a reasonable belief. In order to prove his point even more, Rowe makes a comprehensive argument about how even if theist explain the reasons why God allows suffering, atheism will still find a way to make their case valid. Rowe also discusses the different categories that an atheist view religious beliefs.

The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.

Conclusion: The mind is substantively different from the body and indeed matter in general. Because in this conception the mind is substantively distinct from the body it becomes plausible for us to doubt the intuitive connection between mind and body. Indeed there are many aspects of the external world that do not appear to have minds and yet appear none the less real in spite of this for example mountains, sticks or lamps, given this we can begin to rationalize that perhaps minds can exist without bodies, and we only lack the capacity to perceive them.

Finally, I will provide a critical assessment that will show that Nelson Pike’s arguments against Hume’s proposed problem that evil poses for belief in a deity with infinite attributes

In this he questions the attributes of God that are traditionally used to describe him. He claims that there is a lack of foundational evidence to prove that God is not only the creator of the universe but is the All Mighty God that he is described as (Speaks). Rather than Hume arguing that Paley’s argument is false, he focuses heavily on if God even exists or if he is the higher figure that he is painted as. Another argument that can be used against Paley is the theory of the Big Bang Theory.

In fact in our every day life we perceive entities like trees, mountains, cars, buildings, all sorts of physical substances with our minds. Second, since ideas can only exist if they are perceived (back to the essi is percipi principle), then we perceive ideas with our minds. Finally, since we perceive all ordinary objects and we perceive ideas, then ordinary objects are nothing but collections of ideas. Thus, adapting this definition of objects of knowledge will lead us to neglect pain as a neuronal activity and accept it as an idea in our mind, neglect sound as sound waves and also accept them as ideas in our mind. Hence, Berkeley offers us a sort of scheme where we have a knower (our minds) something to know (the ideas) and an act, which is perceiving.

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.

Philo’s argument starts off with two premises: A “Deity” has unlimited power and knowledge, and anything that he wills, he will receive. Cleanthes and Demea both accept the premises to be true. Philo carries on by stating that since a “Deity” always receives what he wants, then he must not want neither man or animal to achieve happiness. Philo concludes his argument by stating that a “Deity” cannot be humane or compassionate because a man understands these phrases to show sympathy and concern for others. (p.63).

In this paper, I will deliver a reconstruction of Descartes’ Cogito Argument and my reasoning to validate it as indubitable. I will do so by justifying my interpretations through valid arguments and claim, by showcasing examples with reasoning. Rene Descartes is a French Philosopher of the 17th century, who formulated the philosophical Cogito argument by the name of ‘cogito ergo sum,’ also known as “I think, therefore, I am.” Rene was a skeptic philosopher amongst many scholastic philosophers at his time. He took a skeptical approach towards the relations between thoughts and existence, to interpret his cogito argument as indubitable and whether it could serve as a foundational belief.

It embodies the insight that there is a serious muddle at the centre of the whole of Descartes theory of knowledge. He says that we do not hold a clear idea of the mind to make out much. ‘He thinks that although we have knowledge through the idea of body, we know the mind “only through consciousness, and because of this, our knowledge of it is imperfect” (3–2.7, OCM 1:451; LO 237). Knowledge through ideas is superior because it involves direct access to the “blueprints” for creation in the divine understanding, whereas in consciousness we are employing our own weak cognitive resources that

Assignment -1 ( PHI446A- Philosophy of Science ) Instructor-Dr.Philose Koshy Name-Pranshu Tripathi Roll No- 160497 Date -15 sept. 2017 QUE.1 Formulate a critical analysis of Rosenkrantz’ s counter example (Three philosophers’ hat)) against Instances Confirmation.