The existence of God
Introduction.
There is Russell’s metaphysical argument against the term "contingent", at least, the one presented by Father Copleston in a debate in 1948. And it understands that the word "contingent" inevitably suggests the possibility of something that would not have what you would call the accidental character of simply existing, and I do not think this is true except in the purely causal sense. Sometimes you can give a causal explanation of something saying that it is the effect of anything else, nor does it make sense either to call things "contingent", because they could not be otherwise.
Also with respect to the moral argument, he does not attribute divine origin to the matter of moral obligation, because the form that takes the moral obligation, when it comes to ordering one who eats his father, for example, he does not seem to me a verynoble and beautiful;And, therefore, it does not attribute divine origin to the moral obligation in this regard that I think it can easily be explained in many other ways.
Developing.
The well -known Russell Tetera is an analogy that presents a skeptical perspective regarding the discussion of God’s existence and how its existence cannot be proven. In other words, what indicates the concept of Russell’s teapot is not that God exists or not (although Russell himself was skeptical about his existence at the time he wrote the argument we deal with in this article), but it makes no sense.
Regarding the moral argument, I notice that when one studies anthropology or history, he realizes that there are people who think that their duty is to perform acts that I consider abominable and, therefore, I cannot attribute divine origin to the subject of the matter of the obligationMoral, but I think that even the form that takes the moral obligation, when it comes to ordering one who eats his father, for example, I do not seem like a very noble and beautiful thing;And, therefore, I cannot attribute divine origin to the moral obligation in this regard that I think it can easily be explained in many other ways.
How many times have we heard the argument that God is a fair and kind being? So why are there good people who happen bad things? Although in his time there was not even Christianity, the Greek philosopher Epicurus raised a riddle that persists to this day. If God exists, but there is also evil, then only two options fit: or God cannot fight evil and therefore is not omnipotent (not a God), or God allows evil and is therefore evil (either (eithera God). Miracles are a fundamental part of Christian ideology. In fact, Jesus himself would have been the author of several of them. But do they really exist?
Conclusions.
According to the Scottish philosopher David Hume, everything is based on probabilities. Is there any example of a genuine and totally confirmed miracle? So far, no;Have existed fraud or deception around alleged miracles? A lots of. Under these principles, the most likely interpretation of an alleged miracle is that there is a rational explanation whose nature we have not yet discovered, before thinking that natural laws have been suspended by a metaphysical action.
Leave feedback