Objectivity implies rationality and universality, since what is objective is knowable by reason and the same for everyone. The primary concern of philosophy is to explore ideas that are central to the ways we live and that we commonly use without much reflection, ideas such as truth and justice, the notion of consciousness, and good and evil. In the course of our daily lives we take the ideas of time, language, knowledge, and our own identity for granted. Philosophy seeks to push our understanding of these ideas deeper. It is the systematic study of ideas that is fundamental to all the other disciplines.
Rationality, universality, and objectivity are logically related, we now approach the subject of how God and truth are related and we do so in reverence and prayerfulness, asking God for his illuminating Holy Spirit that those things he has revealed to the minds of men would be here revealed. The study of God, theology proper, is a subject that ought to be approached with the highest of esteem and caution, for we are never closer to blasphemy than when we pervert theology or unleash our tongues in anger. As God is the keeper of all truth, we ask he grace us with a proper understanding of him.
The author says that he is no longer convinced of universality because he still avsolutely convinced that all philosophers, must be prepared to advance good arguments in support of our moral, polititcal, and scientice beliefs. He is devoted to rationality as he was when he began his philosophical career, and he remain
committed to discovering the wau the world is, not just to give expression to his
feelings, prejudices, or inner concerns. So he remain committed to objectivity, but he now has very seriour doubts about universality, the third of the three tradtional hallmarks of philosophical truth.
Do I agree will I don’t really know if I do agree cuz I still don’t really understand most of it, they sound all the same. I never had any beliefs in any of this. I still use my reson to distinguish truth from fasem the sensible from the sensible from the senselessm the prudent from the imprudent, and the right from the wrong.
- The Cosmological Argument attempts to prove that God exists by showing that there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to things that exist. It states that there must be a final uncaused-cause of all things. This uncaused-cause is asserted to be God.
The strengths of the Cosmological Argument lie in both its simplicity and easily comprehensible concept that there cannot be an infinite number of causes to an event. Some arguments for God's existence require more thought and training in terms and concepts, but this argument is basic and simple. Also, it is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into existence and must, therefore, have causes.
One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes
causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes which cannot be.
- The ontological argument is an attempt to prove God’s existence a priori. It does not rely on our observations of the universe, the world around us. It uses logic,
and the idea that it is illogical to say that God does not exist, as it’s main argument. Anslem’s argument appears to be convincing on a analytical level,it’s weakness lies in the assumption that the word, ‘existence’ is a predicate that can add more information to any noun. There is also a basic problem in taking an argument based purely on analytical logic and attempting to apply it’s conclusions to the real observable world.
The argument works by examining the concept of God, and arguing that it implies the actual existence of God, if we can conceive of God, then God exists, it is thus self-contradictory to state that God does not exist. This is obviously a controversial position, and the ontological argument has a long history of detractors and defende. There for we can prove or not prove that god really does exist that is what I belive what is the strongest argument. does he, or not, exist, we can use alot of different information to gather different thought. but obtaining the truth is something that we have to find within our selfs, or our opinions based on religion.
- The evidential problem of evil is the problem of determining whether and if so to what extent the existence of evil (or certain instances, kinds, quantities, or distributions of evil) constitutes evidence against the existence of God, that is to say, a being perfect in power, knowledge and goodness. Evidential arguments from evil attempt to show that, once we put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God, it becomes unlikely, if not highly unlikely, that the world was created and is governed by an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being.
The logical problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of the evil in the world with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good God. The argument from evil is the atheistic argument that the existence of such evil cannot be reconciled with, and so disproves, the existence of such a God.
5. Hume’s empiricism leads to skepticism regarding causation and the unity of the self. It must be some one impression that gives rise to every real idea. But self or person is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to have a reference. If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same, through the whole course of our lives; since self is supposed to exist after that manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time.
Bibliography
Research databases access
1.
2.
3.
4. Book: About philosophy
5. Articles
