Divine command theory is often thought to be refuted by an argument known as the Euthyphro dilemma. The Euthyphro dilemma begins by posing a question: Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God? Whichever way the theist answers this question, problems are thought to follow.
Search The Kalam Cosmological Argument The temporal, kalam cosmological argument, dates back to medieval Muslim philosophers such as al-Kindi and al-Ghazali. It has recently been restored to popularity by William Lane Craig.
Like all cosmological arguments, the kalam cosmological argument is an argument from the existence of the world or universe to the existence of God.
The existence of the universe, such arguments claim, stands in need of explanation. The only adequate explanation, the arguments suggest, is that it was created by God.
What distinguishes the kalam cosmological argument from other forms of cosmological argument is that it rests on the idea that the universe has a beginning in time.
Modal forms of the cosmological argument are consistent with the universe having an infinite past. According to the kalam cosmological argument, however, it is precisely because the universe is thought to have a beginning in time that its existence is thought to stand in need of explanation.
This argument has the following logical structure: The Kalam Cosmological Argument 1 Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. The first premise of the argument is the claim that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. In order to infer from this that the universe has a cause of its existence the proponent of the kalam cosmological argument must prove that the past is finite, that the universe began to exist at a certain point in time.
The crucial premise of the kalam cosmological argument, then, is the second: How do we know that the universe has a beginning of its existence? Might not the universe stretch back in time into infinity, always having existed?
The proponent of the kalam cosmological argument must show that this cannot be the case if his argument is to be successful.
Advocates of the kalam cosmological argument claim that it is impossible that the universe has an infinite past. In support of this claim, modern advocates of the argument often appeal to modern science, specifically to the Big Bang theory.
Modern science, they say, has established that the universe began with the Big Bang. Traditionally, however, it is mathematics that has been used by proponents of the kalam argument in order to establish that the past is finite.What the Sokal Hoax Ought to Teach Us.
The pernicious consequences and internal contradictions of "postmodernist" relativism. Paul A.
Boghossian. From the Times Literary Supplement, ashio-midori.comer 13, , pp Moral Relativism. Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.
It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral. An argument with a weak or invalid structure (true or false) Cultural relativism implies that moral progress is possible.
false, If cultural relativism . Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid, and that all truth is relative to the individual.
the philosophy of relativism is pervasive in our culture today.
So, either way, he has lost the argument. But, with relativism who really cares, since it is all relative? To conclude, if relativism is. The teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world..
The earliest recorded versions of this argument are associated with Socrates in ancient Greece, although it has been. [Edit 3/ I no longer endorse all the statements in this document. I think many of the conclusions are still correct, but especially section 1 is weaker than it should be, and many reactionaries complain I am pigeonholing all of them as agreeing with Michael Anissimov, which they do .