irrational thinking when trying to teach sound reasoning isn’t rare. It’s more the norm than the exception. It’s no wonder that there’s so much confusion on this subject. One Christian intellectual made the following statement: An axiom is a presupposition, assumed true, from which theorems are deduced. He then claimed this: It makes sense to use the propositions of Scripture as axioms. That’s hifalutin talk, but it isn’t reasonable. It might feel reasonable at first, but it isn’t reasonable.
Descartes’ ontological argument is an echo of the original ontological argument for the existence of God as proposed by St. Anselm in the 11th century. To illustrate the background of the ontological argument, Anselm’s argument works within a distinct framework of ontology that posits the existence of God as necessity by virtue of its definition. In other words, for the mind to conceive of an infinite, perfect God, ultimately implies that there must indeed be a perfect God that embodies existence
know and describe it, or is the universe just a false reality in which nothing really exists at all? This is all based on the presuppositions of knowledge, those "philosophical principles that lie at the foundations of virtually all of our knowledge and beliefs." Without them, we could believe nothing, know nothing, and think nothing else. The presupposition that the universe even exists is the fundamental belief that breathes air into the lungs of science. Although most people choose not
Dr. Nash offers “three major reasons” for his effort in this book: (1) To see whether pluralism succeeds in developing a strong enough case against exclusivism to lead thoughtful people to abandon the Christian church’s historic teaching that Jesus is the only Savior (part 1); (2) to see whether inclusivism succeeds in developing a strong enough case against exclusivism to lead thoughtful Christians to embrace inclusivism (part 2); and (3) to present at least some of the reasons why many thoughtful
constructed around certain essential presuppositions: presuppositions that assume some form of continuation of personal identity after death. One cannot logically deny that, by definition, death entails the end of bodily existence, so one, it seems, is logically drawn to the notion that survival after death entails the survival of some kind of non-bodily identity - the soul. In the last two chapters Phillips disputes this presupposition, claiming that a perfectly valid conception
Medicine, Metaphysics and Morals ABSTRACT: Moral decisions concerning what ought to be done always assume metaphysical presuppositions concerning the way the world is. In the field of biomedical ethics, some of the metaphysical presuppositions underlying many current discussions of issues of life and death seem particularly implausible. These include our assumption of the reality of social atomism and our beliefs relating to the possibility of autonomy. Given the implausibility of these two assumptions
Intellectual thought since Nietzsche has found itself one way or another addressing the death of God. Most of this thinking, however, has taken place from an atheistic starting point and has not considered its own presuppositions. It strives to find consistent outworking from these presuppositions and to eradicate the shadow of God carried over from the Enlightenment tradition because of its grounding in a theistic worldview. However, the outcome and implications of thinking after the death of God has
can be sustained in the presence of scientific rationality. The argument is self-referential, positing its conclusion as its premise: nature is fine-tuned because God exists, which we know because nature is fine-tuned, which we know because God exists, etcetera. Circular reasoning fails to provide evidence for the existence of a deity. Postulated by professor emeritus of philosophy Alvin Plantinga, the “Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism” (EAAN) proves to be a somewhat controversial topic.
still felt rage because of these outlandish expectations of beauty. Russell used these arguments to drive her speech about the actions of the modeling critics. She exploited the moment by feeding off harsh criticism the modeling world was receiving, and placing herself on the side of the attackers. The speech addresses the definition of beauty, as projected by the modeling industry. Russell begins her argument by entering the stage in a black body con dress, black heels, and full hair and makeup
mean that the news story is the reporter¡¦s opinion or feeling, that is contains facts and that the account is an impartial and independent observer. Unfair and unbalanced journalism might be described as a failure in objectivity. When they checked against some kind of record, for example, a police report, the text of a speech, a payroll, unemployment data, etc, that the story to be objective. Others hold it to mean that journalists should have something like a netural point of view, not taking a stand