Human existence

philosophers trying to explain the existence of God; the Cosmological Argument is one such theory. The Cosmological Argument has been changed and reviewed for years; however, the focus has always stayed the same. The universe is a prime example that there is a God. A simple Cosmological argument states that: Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. The universe exists. Therefore, The universe has a cause of its existence. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.

them. However, delving below the surface of such arguments shows holes in the reasoning of these philosophers. Though I would like to believe in the existence of God, after seeing the arguments for God's existence thoroughly discredited, I am not entirely sure what to believe. The cosmological argument is one such argument supporting the existence of God. It is a posteriori, meaning that the versions of this argument are based on premises that can only be known to be true by means of experience

The actuality of a divine being the cause of our existence is a topic that has been debated by philosophers for centuries. To this day there is no clear answer as both sides of the argument give reasons to refute the opposing side’s arguments. Ernest Nagel is a well-known philosopher as he is recognized for his works against theism and for supporting atheism in his literary works. In Nagel’s “A Defense Of Atheism” he criticizes the theistic arguments that claim a god is overseeing our world. The

is not a successful argument to reject the existence of God. This is due to the LPE arguing with an inaccurate definition for the word “good”. With the correct definition of “good,” I will show that an all-good and all-powerful God can logically exist simultaneously with evil. A response to my objection could be the Furthermore, if we allow the inadequate use of the word “evil”, the LPE still does not constitute the immediate rejection of the existence of God due to the concept of free will. A response

but the reality of this ideal that is in question” (Souriau, 2015, p. 208). Passive vitalism in Souriau terms thus expresses in existence without defining what is given in potential (virtual materiality) and what can become actual (concrete materiality). What is defended is an existential pluralism (such as that of William James, A.N. Whitehead and Gilles Deleuze); existences are intensive, allophonic and polyphonic, where the phenomenal, material, virtual, sentient and

is not a successful argument to reject the existence of God. This is due to the LPE arguing with an inaccurate definition for the word “good”. With the correct definition of “good,” I will show that an all-good and all-powerful God can logically exist simultaneously with evil. A response for my objection could be the Furthermore, if we allow the inadequate use of the word “evil”, the LPE still does not constitute the immediate rejection of the existence of God due to the concept of free will. A response

really exist? Is he real? Did he create the universe? Did he create humans? If God does not exist, then who created human? How did this universe unfold? These are some of the question that people ask themselves about our creator, some people who do not believe in god, don’t believe that he created the universe and humans, this is a long going debate about the existence of god. The Teleological Argument, is the proof of an existence that’s called a deity, and a deity is sometimes called the “design

As seen in the previous paragraph, Eddy Nahmias’s argument that scientists do not understand the human mind yet is wrong, and creates a hole in his argument. Also mentioned above, scientists say that the human minds simply take in sensual inputs, and make a decision off of these inputs. This argument is acknowledged through the impossibility of self-causation argument which Peter Ulric defines through his book, “The Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial Causation”, where he explains the impossibility

the thinker must decide whether or not God exists and use this as a basis for the rest of his ideas. The great questions, is there a God? Why is this question so important? Well, it’s the determining factor in what human beings naturally are. Disregarding the argument for his existence or nonexistence, the basis of a philosopher determines how they will think of ideas and concepts. An atheist may see many men doing charitable work and few men doing evil work, and he can come to the conclusion that

“Philosophizing is questioning the extra-ordinary” (Heidegger, et al. 14). He suggests, however, that when science questions existence, it simply focuses on what is, while dismissing that which is not (the nothing), and that because of this oversight, scientists do not see the full picture of existence. As a philosopher, Heidegger sought a deeper understanding of the purpose of human existence − his secular version of “God”, if you will, and he may have discovered it in the Nothing. After contemplation of Martin