To what extent is god's omnipotence a logically coherant concept
To what extent is the omnipotence god a logically coherent concept? The attributes of our god state that he as the creator is omnipotent so that should assume that he can do anything that is logically possible but can he do something that is logical like we can. By our definition he should be able to do anything and everything. But is there anything that god can't do such as: Can god run? As human we have 2 arms and two legs to enable us to run but the other attributes of god contradict each other because if he is all powerful yes he can do anything but by also saying that god has always existed suggest a god like Aristotle a prime mover that exists outside of space and time and therefore can't have any matter and so can't run does this mean that we are better than god by being able to do something that he can't and therefore he isn't omnipotent. The omnipotence of god and the paradoxes it creates were attempted to be solved by Rene Descartes he theorised that god is completely omnipotent and there is nothing that cannot do e.g. create a stone too big for him to lift. Descartes would then go on the say that although he has created a so called object that he cannot lift he would be able to lift because of his omnipotence no matter how logically impossible the instance. This form of omnipotence is similar to the first version of Peter Geach's theory of omnipotence of the
Examine the major features of the Ontological argument for the existence of God.
Examine the major features of the Ontological argument for the existence of God. The ontological argument has a few key features, for example it is an a-priori argument, which means that it is based on logic alone and does not rely on us having experience of the concepts to relate to it. One feature of the ontological argument is that it is a deductive argument, this means that the conclusion automatically follows the premises. If the premises are true then you cannot deny the conclusion. The premises of the argument are that God is the greatest conceivable being and that existence is a property that one can have. If we accept these premises then it makes it really difficult to deny the conclusion of the argument due to its deductive form. A feature of the Ontological argument is that it is an a-priori argument, that is, it does not rely on our experience, only logic. It only relies on our knowledge of Anslem's definition of God as being the Greatest Conceivable Being. Another key feature of the argument is that it is in analytic form. This means an analytical statement that is true by its own definition, for example, "All bachelors are unmarried men." In the same way the ontological argument says that the idea of God itself contains the idea of his existence. If this is true then God's existence should be self evident to everyone. Anselm's ontological argument purports to
Explain Plato's theory of forms.
Philosophy essay 1 - Plato Explain Plato's theory of forms Plato's theory of forms is strongly based on what is real and what is not. What is real is thought to be perfect, but something cannot be real or perfect if it is always changing. He explains that the "World of forms" is very different to the "World of appearances". The "World of forms" can only be properly understood by philosophers and those who seek knowledge, not by the ignorant or those who do not wish to learn the truth. The theory of forms makes a distinction between those objects that are real and those that are only real in our minds. His dialogues (e.g. Parable of the cave) portray knowledge as the process of leaving the cave and going into the sunlight. The people in the cave find their reality in the shadows cast in the cave and assume there can never be anything beyond these shadows. These shadows symbolise how the world that we see is just a shadow or reflection of what is real. For Plato, the real world is not what we see around us, it is only the "World of forms" that is real and unchanging. This is also known as the " One and many". The "One" being the perfect "World of forms" and the "Many" being the imperfect "World of appearances" Plato approach to the two different/ alternate world is know as dualism. The idea of dualism has had a major effect and has strongly influenced the development of
Is Global Scepticism Possible?
Is Global Scepticism Possible? Natasha Baddeley Global scepticism puts all of our attempts at seeking true knowledge into doubt; it makes all traditional ways of finding out about the world unreliable. One of the most famous sceptics is the philosopher Rene Descartes. In his first meditation, Descartes regards the 'many false things' that he had once believed as a child and acknowledges that all his beliefs were built on things that can be doubted. Descartes believed that he would have to start again on more solid foundations than those more doubtful ones his knowledge was previously built on. It is through Descartes' acceptance that all his current knowledge is doubtful that makes him a sceptic, however even Descartes hold the view that he will still be able to rebuild his knowledge once he gains more solid foundations. Descartes put forward three waves of doubt, the argument from illusion, the evil demon argument and the argument from dreaming. Descartes believed that each of these 'waves of doubt' forced him to question all the beliefs that he held. Descartes believes, in his argument from illusion, that our senses sometimes deceive us; for instance, when I look at a drinking straw in a glass it appears bent, yet when I remove the straw from the glass it is straight. Descartes argues that if our senses have been proven to mislead us in the past, then we cannot be certain
How fair is the claim that religious language is meaningless?
How fair is the claim that religious language is meaningless? (35) How do Christians decide what is meaningless and what statements in Religion have meaning? Different beliefs think that different things are classed as meaningful and meaningless, so how is it possible to make statements classed fairly as meaningless or meaningful? To answer these questions four different scholars came up with theory's to prove when something is meaningful and when it is not. These theories are called the Via Negativa, the Verification Principle, the Falsification Principle and Ludwig's Language Games and they all have different ways to decide when a statement has meaning and should be used in Religious Language. The Via Negativa, also known as the apophatic way, says it is impossible to speak about what God is, so instead says Religion should describe God as what he is not. It involves speaking in negative terms when describing God, instead of using positive terms such as 'God is father' and imagining him to be human, rather than something greater than everything. Pseudo-Dionysius argued that the Via Negativa is the only way to talk truthfully and meaningfully about God. He believed saying what God is not is the only way to prove statements are meaningful, because God is beyond all human imagination and understanding. The main arguments against the Via Negativa relate to believers thoughts
Religious Experience is Nothing but Fantasy. Discuss (35 Marks)
Religious Experience is Nothing but Fantasy. Discuss (35 Marks) The above criticism to religious belief was proposed by Sigmund Freud; who thought that the origin of relig exp (religious experience) is rooted in the unconscious and that they are a product of eschewed psychosexual development. Freud rejected any appeal to the supernatural to explain these occurrences as our mind regularly deludes itself, pointing to dreams as an obvious example. The materialistic approach to explaining relig exp has led scientists to pinpoint specific physical causes of this phenomena; St Paul of Tarsus is thought to have possessed a form of epilepsy. In this case, Paul's relig exp would be a fantasy but perceived as real experience. A theistic challenge to materialism is that God and organic explanations of religious phenomena. In this way our brains may be wired up to experience God; materialism does not necessarily deem all relig exp fantasy. But how does one explain those who do not experience religious phenomena? Are some people born with Gods calling card? This in my mind is where atheists and theists will never agree; theists will say God only chooses some to be his messengers and atheists will say that our genetics and upbringing predispose some of us to superstition. In this way we cannot know whether each and every religious experience is fantasy; a conclusion reached by Bertrand
Evaluate the weaknesses of design arguments for the existence of God
Evaluate the weaknesses of design arguments for the existence of God (9) The design argument is an a posteriori argument for the existence of god based on apparent design and purpose in the universe. The argument is based on an interpretation of teleology where in purpose and intelligent design appears to exist in nature beyond the scope of any such human activities. The teleological argument suggests that, given the premise, the existence of a designer can be assumed, typically presented as God. It is an inductive argument which means that we learn something new and it goes beyond the truth of the premise which may or may not be a good thing. The fall of it going beyond the truth of the premise is that we can never fully trust the conclusion which may mean that we cannot fully justify and explain the argument. The design argument is also a posteriori argument which means everything is based on experience of the world. This means that we can find evidence in the world to support the premises of the conclusion. Although, Kant emphasised that the design argument depended on the assumption that there is design in the universe. The design must be the independent work of a designer who imposed order and purpose in the universe. The argument is based on the assumption that there is irregularity, order and purpose in the universe. Kant argued that the universe may be in chaos
Explain the theodicy of Irenaeus. Irenaeus theodicy is the response to the problem of evil, which like Augustines traces back to the idea of humans free will being the source of evil.
Explain the theodicy of Irenaeus. (25 Marks) The Irenaeus Theodicy, often called Soul Making, is a counterpart to Augustine's Theodicy, yet it is also and opposing argument. Irenaeus' theodicy is the response to the problem of evil, which like Augustine's traces back to the idea of human's free will being the source of evil. While Augustine stated that evil came from humans and Adam in Genesis, Irenaeus proposes that evil is opposing the humans race to become in to God's likeness. Irenaeus believed that there was an aim in God's creation of the world, that being that humans were to be made flawless, in his likeness, although human perfection can't be made. It has to be earned, and developed through our own soul and with the correct use of free will. Creation is not yet finished. We have been made in the image of God with the potential to be like God. If we were just made to be perfect it would mean nothing to God. However, if we prove to God by the choice of free will it will show God we really care as we are choosing to do good. To back up this point Irenaeus uses the example of a mother not being able to give a child 'substantial nourishment' or solid food. This meaning, just as a young infant can't take solid foods and therefore is given milk as they are immature, humans could not receive fully formed goodness, as they were spiritually immature and so are given free will
Explain the various forms of the ontological argument
Tom Hadden "Explain The Various Forms of the Ontological Argument." a) There are a number of different ways to try and prove the existence of God. Most of these arguments have one thing in common, namely their starting points are based on experience; they are "A Posteriori," arguments. The Ontological argument, is totally different to all of these as it is an "A Priori," argument. Meaning that: It does not start from experience; it arrives at the existence of God by analysing God's essence; finally if the argument succeeds, unlike the other arguments, there is no longer any doubt that God exists. The thing that this argument hinges on is what one understands by, "necessity." Once one has understood this concept then they can come to grips with the argument. On the other hand, if one fails to understand then they will not be able to appreciate the argument. The Ontological argument starts with the statement that God is necessary. The phrase that Anselm uses is "de dicto necessary," meaning that the definition of God makes him necessary. It claims that once we discover the meaning of God, it is logically absurd to suggest his non-existence. The man who first suggested this argument was St Anselm (1033-1109.) Unsurprisingly he starts this argument with a definition of God, defining him as "That than which nothing greater can be conceived," this being the definition he gave
Explain how Benthams version of Utilitarianism can be used to decide the best course of action
Explain how Bentham's version of Utilitarianism can be used to decide the best course of action. Jeremy Bentham, father and founder of Utilitarianism, first proposed his theory, now known as and hereby referred to as Act Utilitarianism, as the basis for a complete social reform. Whilst Bentham may have failed in this aspect, he did lay the foundations for future ethicists such as J.S. Mill, P. Singer and H. Sidgwick to expand and explore his theory of Utilitarianism further. Bentham's original theory of Utilitarianism can be boiled down to one underlying principle; the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Bentham proposed that an action's moral worth can be determined by the use of the Hedonic Calculus. This formula takes into account the intensity, duration and number of people affected (amongst other factors) and places a numerical value on the outcome. This may seem like a rather clinical and mathematic way to try and measure what it ultimately an abstract concept such as pleasure or happiness, and subsequently critics have said Bentham's version of Utilitarianism can be used to justify horrific acts such as torture, gang rape or murder. An example of when Act Utilitarianism could be used to decide the best course of action would be in a group of people choosing what topping to order on their pizza. If, for example, 3 out of the four people wanted
