Hey hey. Nate back.
Well, this weekend is the weekend that I have to work on my philosophy essay. So I figured, hey. Essay. I could put that shit up on my blog.
So I will.
The essay is on the same topic as the seminar was, the philosophy of God.
So without further ado..
*ahem*
This essay is going to discuss the subject of God. Dictionaries state that God is "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions". Basically, God is the creator of the universe, the reason that humanity exists, and the guiding force behind the world today. That is, if He exists. This essay will discuss arguments for and against the worship of God. Frankly, there is no answer, but it shall be discussed anyway to see just how close mankind has come to finding the truth.
First of all, this essay shall discuss the Bible as proof of the existence of God. This is a source that many Christians turn to immediately when their faith is questioned. The Bible, though, is not proof of God. Simply because the Bible does not
try to prove God. The Bible assumes God in the same manner that a book discussing pies would not begin with a chapter on proving the existence of pies. The book on pies would simply assume the existence of pies, and continue on from there. In the same sense, the Bible assumes God, and does not attempt to prove the existence.
Secondly, Pascal's Wager should be discussed. Pascal was a famous mathematician that coined an interesting wager. He said that there either is a God or there is not. So either people believe in God, or they do not. If a person believes in God, and there is a God, then they are rewarded in heaven. If the same person believes in God and is wrong, then they have sacrificed a few illicit pleasures in life, but have lived a generally good life. On the other hand, a person may choose not to believe in God. If this person is right, then when he or she dies, it is over, and they have gained over their lifetime the illicit pleasures that were denied the religious man. But should the man be wrong when not believing in God, then the man goes to hell, and suffers for eternity. Pascal wagered that it was better to live a life with God and be given the chance to go to heaven. He believed that this was the only logical solution. The logical counter-argument would be that conversion for the sake of avoiding hell would not be true conversion. Faith for the sake of protection is not real faith.
The first of the real proofs dealed within this essay is the Ontological argument. This argument simply states that the nature of God implies perfection. If God did not exist, God would not be perfect. And since God is, by definition, perfect, He must exist. This argument was concieved by St. Alselm, a Benedictine Monk, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. He said that God was "that than which no greater can be conceived". The greatest that anybody could conceive of was God. If somebody conceived of something greater, then
that would be God. This argument was simplified in Gaunilo's Perfect Island. This perfect island is the greatest island that can be conceived of. Any island that did not exist could not be the perfect island. Therefore, a perfect island must exist somewhere. The major opposition to this argument actually came from a fellow monk of Anselm. He stated that this perfect argument could be used to argue the perfect anything. The perfect pie, the perfect pilot, the perfect song. Since there cannot be a perfect everything, the argument becomes flawed.
Another argument is the Cosmological argument. This argument, stated simply, is that nothing can be without cause. Everything that exists in this world exists because it has been caused. A pencil exists because it has been built, a computer exists because it has been built, and so on. So therefore there must be an explanation as to how the universe came into existance, and how life and all things natural came into existance. It is argued that this could only be God. The obvious counter-argument, of course, is the question: Does God have a cause? The short answer being no. Some philosophers have argued that God is timeless, and that only those creations which were created in the span of time must have a cause. By that argument, God is exempt from the argument. This argument falls short rather quickly when put to the test.
The third argument is the Teleological argument, and is probably the strongest argument. This argument states that the world is so complicated that it could not be the result of simple chance. It argues that the complexity of the world suggests that it was designed and created. And the creator, by definition, would be God. William Paley put it best when he likened the world to a watch. The watch, with its numerous parts working together to tell the time in such a precise method. It was suggested that if one found a watch sitting in a field, nobody would question the existance of the watchmaker. It would be ridiculous to assume that the watch simply happened out of chance. It is argued that this is similar to humanity in the sense that we could not possibly be the result of mere chance. The human brain, the eye, all of these incredibly complex things that we are only beginning to grasp, it is suggested that it is so complex because it was designed. A major opposition to this argument was David Hume, who argued that even if the complexity of the world
does suggest that it was designed, it does not suggest that it was designed by a single entity, or even a "good" entity. It could have been created by a group of people, or even an incompetant creator, which would account for the evil in the world. It was also argued that it is far from impossible for the universe to have become this way out of chance. It may have been an incredibly slim chance, but there was always a chance for things to have turned out this way. There was also a chance for things to turn out much worse, but also much better. But this has only covered proofs for God up to this point, perhaps it is time to cover arguments against.
The first major argument against the existence of some sort of God is the existence of evil in this world. God is said to be an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving creator, the father of all humanity. Why, then, would such a being allow such terrible tragedies to befall his children? Wars that have spanned the globe and killed millions. Humans killing other Humans, sometimes in massive genocides that slaughter whole races. Diseases that spread like wildfire and infect people, killing them or leaving them weak and crippled. Why does not God simply end this, and allow us to be happy? Most parents do their best to protect their children from pain and suffering, and if God is truly omnipotent, he could stop all of the suffering of the world. This is the main argument against the existence of a God. Many Christians would state that many of the terrible things happening to the world would be the work of the Devil, or Satan. But that does not excuse the argument that God could simply make it all go away, with his omnipotence. So why does he not do this? It is also argued that for there to be good in the world, there must be evil. For light to exist, there must be dark. This is the most popular argumet against God, but there are many others.
The problem with divine omnipotence, for one. This entire idea ends in contradiction, for nothing can be truly omnipotent. There are limits on everything. Even if there did exist some sort of diving being, it could not possibly be omnipotent. This is usually phrased in a question like "Could God create a rock so heavy that not even he could lift it?". Either God can indeed create such a rock, or He could not. If He could and did, then it would contradict his omnipotence because he has created something that not even he could do. If he was omnipotent, he could create such a rock. If He could not create such a rock, then his omnipotence is already disproven, simply because he could not accomplish the task. In this way, the theory of omniotence is flawed and contradicts itself. And since this is one of the majorly believed attributes for God, it seems to suggest that such a being does not exist.
Another problem with God is divine justice. It is said that God is all-forgiving, and that he forgives anyone of their sins if they so desire. But the idea of an all-forgiving diety seems to clash with some of the more gruesome tales from the Bible. Such as when a group of people mocked one of God's prohets. According to the Bible, they were attacked and killed by bears, sent by God. Surely an forgiving God would not have his children mauled to death by bears whild murderers and rapists run free? Also, the idea of hell seems to be a contradiction to the idea of a forgiving God. What sin could a single mortal person accomplish in their meager lifetime that would deserve the eternal torment of hell? This is just one of the many arguments against God.
Some even argue for agnosticism, the theological middle ground that believes that no answer can be achieved in either way. It is argued that nobody can possibly be certain of whether or not any sort of God exists. That is where faith comes in with those that believe, and skepticism with those that do not. Agnostics sit on the proverbial fence when it comes to the idea of a higher power. But alas, there exist few arguments for agnosticism, aside from the obvious argument that we can be sure of nothing.
No true conclusions can ever be drawn from this subject. Not until death is reached, that is. That seems to be when all of the questions asked about God will be answered. But unfortunately, nobody can return from such a state to endow the rest of the world with their knowledge. We may never reach an answer when it comes to the existence of God, but knowing the arguments for and against will always help people to come to terms with their own personal beliefs on the subject.
END!
That about covers it for now...
So let's move onto other things.
On thursday night, I went on an undertaking. I got in a car with Owen, Jared, Wyatt, and Mitch, and we drove to Mississauga to see the 12:01 X-Men 3 premiere. You may think us mad, but it was the closest place doing a midnight showing, and we were hungry for the movie. The ride itself was fun, listening to disco and funk, and talking with the nerds.
The theatre was massive, and we arrived an hour ahead of the showing. Wyatt and I played some DDR, or at least it was similar to DDR...We forgot the name, and instead dubbed it "Dance Groove 9". It was trippy as hell. We got sweaty, and then watched the movie.
Which was FANTASTIC, by the way. I won't spoil any of it, but man, it was simply amazing.
And then today, I went to see it again. This time with Dave, Eric, and Rick. I wasn't planning it, but then Dave asked me out of the blue if I wanted to see it. Though I should have been working on this essay, I was already about half-done and in the mood for a break. So we went and enjoyed ourselves immensely.
And let me just say now...Mystique is smoking-hot. Even in the blue, I can't help but find her so goddamn attractive. In fact, I don't understand how anybody could even let themselves be deterred by the blue! Am I the only one that's even fantasized about tapping a blue chick?
And Rogue was much hotter than Kittie. I mean, her name was freakin' Kittie Pryde for god's sake! What kind of name is that?!
I rest my case.
And with that, I think I'm going to go to Rick's for a while.
Until next time,
I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!
~Kataron
You are so dumb. You have no freaking idea what you're tlaking about. Just because of the clothes someone wears doesnt make them a slut. You actually have to do something to be a slut, Moron!"