referred his epistemology as “critical philosophy” since all he wanted to do was critique reason and sort our legitimate claims of reasons from illegitimate ones. His epistemology says that we can have an objective, universal, and necessary knowledge of the world, and that science cannot tell us about reality. He claims science cannot tell us anything because it only tells us about the world as it is perceived, whether it’s based on measures, manipulations, experiments and so on. Kant says that we
divine command theorists also do not believe in universal moral standards (Boss 136). Additionally they state God has the ability to change moral rules at any time (Boss 138). For instance, although the ten commandments state thou shalt not kill, a divine command theorist would claim the radical islamic terrorists responsible for 9/11 were morally correct in killing thousands of people because God commanded it then. However, a divine command theorist would also have to believe president George Bush was
In philosophy of religion, one of Descartes’s most famous arguments is his Ontological proof for the existence of God. It is a proof that one can know God a priori, with no experience whatsoever. Countering Descartes, a philosopher named Caterus raised key objections to his proof, which Descartes later responded to in an intriguing way. Descartes’s reply to Caterus’s critique of the Ontological argument does not properly refute the objections made. Descartes’s Ontological argument begins with the
greatest unknown wonders reputes the existence of the almighty being, God. There have been millions of reports by people claiming they have had religious experiences with God. The question is whether this reckons as sufficient evidence to interactions with God, and whether it should be justifiably accepted as knowledge. Philosopher, William P. Alston, recorded his findings and beliefs regarding this matter in his publication, Perceiving God, in 1991. Conversely, philosopher, William L. Rowe, refuted Alston’s
Intro Understanding art is often thought of as being an unreachable goal, but art should not be considered arbitrary because it influences the cultures and societies around us. The purpose of this paper is to define and also establish my opinions on Pensacola Christian College’s (PCC) definition of art, the bibliosophy of art, and Dr. Francis Schaeffer’s criteria for art. These topics are useful for artists as well as anyone else critiquing art, and can also serve as guidelines and standards for
understanding the nature of God and whether God is real or not real is for the most part innate. I have dwindled it down to two types of people in my world, people who believe in God and who do not believe in God. Most of my childhood growing up, I believed in a creator of the world, but as I grew up and began to understand more about science as well as reasoning, I walked a fine line between what I was taught to believe and what I thought was real. My family began to drift away from God, as did I. Everything
had a critique of the ontological argument, that we as humans cannot know Gods nature, humans will all conceive of God in different ways, some conceptions of God even assign him a body; this argument couldn’t apply to all these conceptions, some of which are contradictory, this would mean it’s impossible to conceive of God in the way that Anselm has put forward. In order for the ontological argument to work you would need to know God perfectly, and since only God knows itself perfectly, only God could
being who holds the power of the world. Whether it is Allah for the Muslims, Brahman for the Hindus, or God for Christians, it seems the notion of God is imbedded deep in the history of many different ethnicities and backgrounds. According to some studies a belief in a deity is innate, we are essentially hardwired to believe in God. Even from a young age we are taught “there is something more out there”, but is there? What proof is there? Has one every seen God? Is it ignorant to simply believe in something
Kierkegaard—is essentially God. Humans are foolish in their attempt to prove God’s existence; for humans’ attempted to do so already assumes god’s existence. In other words, , there would be no need for proof. The bible is in no way able to act as the only proof of God’s existence. To argue that the events in the world must derive from an all-good being (God) assumes that these events are all ultimately good—and this assumption is based on the belief that there exists an all-good author of these
When determining whether or not art is beautiful, we tend to rely on our feelings more than what is logical. We take the images we see and try to connect them with our personal lives. When you look at an image of a car and it might take you back to when you got your first car and the feeling you felt. The problem with that is the way you feel about that specific car may not be the same as someone else and the image of the car you are looking at was created from someone else’s perspective. So, how