It represents many major areas of philosophy of religion and major philosophers of religion. This can be achieved by following one of three paths (margas): (1) the path of knowledge (jnanamarga), (2) the path of devotion (bhaktimarga), or (3) the path of action (karmamarga).4 .
For example, if g was caused by f, and f was caused by e, and e was caused by d, and so on, the series appears to be inexplicable in itself no matter how far back we go. If all the things in the series are contingent (ie things dependent on other things), that is, it seems that the sum of the series is also contingent. Since each thing in the series of contingent things needs a cause for its existence, how can the series taken as a whole not also need a cause.
So, as argued in Assumption 3, the series seems to require an external cause—one that is not itself caused and justifies the conditional series (see Figure 4.1). Furthermore, proponents of the argument from contingency may argue that this uncaused reason of the contingent series is what is meant by God. A few different objections to this form of cosmological argument follow.
One way would be to claim that since each part of the series needs a cause, then the series as a whole must also need a cause, because the series is nothing more than the sum of its parts.
As he puts it: "I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the total has any cause whatsoever ... I must say that the universe is just there, and that is all."11.
So there must be an explanation beyond that – an explanation that is sufficient in itself. 2The sufficient reason for a thing's existence must lie either in the thing itself or outside the thing. 3All things in the universe are things whose sufficient reason lies outside themselves (that is, nothing in the universe provides its own explanation for its existence).
5 Thus, there must be a sufficient reason for the universe as a whole that extends beyond itself. 7 Therefore, there must be a first self-explanatory thing (Being) whose sufficient reason for existence lies within itself and not outside of it (ie a necessary Being whose non-existence is impossible). The defender of the argument from sufficient reason, then, puts the critic on the defensive and asks this question: "Who is more reasonable, the person who asserts that there is a sufficient reason for the existence of the universe, or the one who denies it?" At first glance, the answer seems obvious.
These objections will not be repeated here, but others have been raised specifically against the argument for sufficient reason.
This illustrates a metaphysical belief that seems almost part of reason itself, even though few ever think about it; the belief, namely that there is an explanation for the existence of anything, a reason why it should exist rather than not. The sheer non-existence of something, which is not to be confused with the disappearance of something's existence, never requires a reason; That there should never have been such a ball in the forest needs no explanation or reason, but that there should ever have been such a ball does.16.
Several of the objections mentioned above about, for example, the argument from contingency, can also be applied to this argument. It can also be noted that the practice of science presupposes that this principle is true. Imagine a scenario in which a scientist, intent on finding the reason why twenty experimental mice in her laboratory developed large tumors, concluded that there was no reason for the growths.
Of course, these responses assume that the principle itself is coherent, but as we will see below, some have argued that this is not the case.
1 The series of events in time that make up the entire history of the universe is a collection formed by adding one member after another. 3 Therefore, the series of events in time that make up the entire history of the universe cannot be an actual infinity. Another kind of scientific evidence offered for the beginning of the universe is the big bang theory.
There are other models of the universe that have been proposed over the past few decades, including new ones. At this time, however, the most established model of the universe – the one still most supported by the scientific evidence – is the traditional big bang theory. The final element of the kalam argument has to do with whether or not the cause of the universe is a personal God.
What could be the grounds for claiming that the cause of the universe is personal, as advocates of kalam claim?
However, given the limitations of the standard big bang model, such a being would have to be immaterial and timeless, qualities atheists find objectionable. To summarize the argument, the unpredictable and chaotic state of the big bang singularity is incompatible with the creator god of the theistic religions. Just as there is no first fraction, so there is no first state of the universe.
Smith refutes this objection by arguing that there is no reason to reject the reality of the singularity; on the contrary, he argues that in standard Big Bang cosmology the singularity is the true endpoint of the converging, backward-looking space-time paths. 1 The Big Bang singularity (the starting point of the universe where the curvature of space becomes, theoretically at least, infinite) is the earliest state of the universe. 2 The earliest state of the universe is lifeless (2 follows from 1, since the singularity involves hostile to life conditions of infinite temperature, infinite curvature, and infinite density).
4 The earliest state of the universe is not guaranteed to evolve into a living state of the universe (including premises 1–3).
God is not bound by laws or a lack of them for accomplishing God’s purposes
The fourth argument – the cosmological argument for atheism – concluded that God must not exist because God's existence is incompatible with the unpredictable and chaotic state of the big bang singularity. How would you explain, in your own words, the two scientific proofs for the beginning of the universe. This classic work contains influential criticisms of the cosmological argument and other arguments as well.).
The beginnings of the teleological argument go back to ancient thinkers in the East and West. Some of the most heated objections arise from the works of David Hume and Charles Darwin. First, Hume is right to note that the argument does not prove that there is a God of religions.
Nevertheless, it undoubtedly provides evidence that there probably is a great designer of the world (that is, a designer of the parts of nature from which the world is composed).
Other arguments can be used to support this in an attempt to demonstrate the existence of the God of religions. Two of the most important recent releases are fine-tuning and intelligent design arguments. Charles Darwin was an English naturalist who is considered to be one of the most influential thinkers in the history of Western civilization.
The explanatory options are basically limited to three: the fine-tuning of the parameters and conditions happened by chance, by necessity or by intelligent design. Not surprisingly, a number of scholars disagree that intelligent design must be assumed to account for the existence of the "fine-tuned" parameters and initial conditions of the universe. The premise of the argument that is mainly being challenged is 2: The fine-tuning of the universe did not happen by chance or necessarily.
Critics note, however, that there is currently no experimental evidence to support the multiverse hypothesis.
A fine-tuning teleologicAl ARgument
Another recent form of the teleological argument is often referred to as the intelligent design argument. The second premise is stating that in some sense a being beyond which no greater can be conceived exists in the mind of the one who understands the concept. One of the possible worlds (ie one of the complete descriptions of reality) is the actual world.
It provides a valid form of ontological argument using the modal notions of possibility and possible worlds. Davis, Stephen (2003) “The Ontological Argument,” in Paul Copan and Paul K. A Supporting Review and Analysis of Two Versions of the Ontological Argument.). Synopses and Analyzes of Several Versions of the Ontological Argument.). 2007) “The Ontological Argument,” in Chad Meister and Paul Copan, eds.
Plantinga, Alvin (1974) The nature of necessity. Contains a version of the ontological argument developed using modal logic.). As long as it is logically possible for incompatibilism to be true, the necessary conclusion of the logical problem of evil is undermined. There are several explanations offered by process thinkers for the existence of the world, but there is one common one.
A PROCESS THEODICy
Entering the Eightfold Path involves a step of faith – an assent (without rational argumentation or evidence) to the teachings of the Buddha. 17. For example, I now have the experience of grasping the meaning of the words in this sentence. Although there are similarities between the religious experiences of adherents of the various religious traditions,.
William James was an American philosopher and psychologist and one of the founders of pragmatism. One of the most famous visionary experiences in the Christian tradition is that described by Saint Teresa of Avila. Both experiences are noetic (that is, both are related to the content of the mind, including beliefs, desires, values, etc.).
Thus, it appears that most religious experiences reflect the beliefs and values associated with the religion, or worldview, of the experiencer. Second, the conflicting claims of the different experiences (conflicts within and without the religious traditions) can cancel each other out. If correlations between brain events and religious experience can be demonstrated in most types of religious experience, this proves that the content of the experience is false, or that what the experience is about does not exist.