The Search for God
Explain St. Thomas Aquinas’ First cause Argument for God.
The first-cause argument comprises of the: “Argument from Motion, Argument from Efficient Causes, Argument from Possibility and Necessity, and Argument from Gradation of Being” (Lawhead, 2014). These four ways are based on the Principle of Sufficient Reasoning which states that everything has an explanation behind its existence. The coming to existence of the universe is one such thing that human beings have struggled to explain. St. Thomas argues that there must be a first cause which was transcendent to the whole chain of causes. He says that if that is not the case, then there must be a being behind all this: God.
Explain The Argument from Design. What is the analogy being made?
The Argument from Design is different from the first four because it does not depend on any controversial assumptions (Lawhead, 2014). The analogy behind it is that God’s existence can be evidentially proven by the appearance of design or purpose in the natural world. It states that natural bodies work towards a goal and they do not exist just by chance. It also argues that human beings lack knowledge and cannot achieve their aims unless directed by something intelligent (Lawhead, 2014). It presents God as the intelligent being leading man/humans.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
David Hume’s on the Argument from Design (Philo’s strategies).
In his book ‘Dialogues Concerning National Religion’, Hume presents Philo, one of the characters who give strategies to counter the Argument by Design. In part II, Philo attempts to show that the argument from design does not actualize itself. He points out that the argument by design is dependent mostly on analogies which are poor. He says the analogy between machines and the universe is imperfect. He also points out that the machine and the universe are not analogous (Lawhead, 2014).
In another argument, Philo argues that all order experienced is not as a result of intelligence. He also categorizes the argument by design as an inductive argument without repeated experience of the phenomena it presents. This is because God and the universe are wholly unique, and their existence cannot be repeated neither can they be put in resemblance.
Explain Blaise Pascal’s “Pascal’s Wager”. What is the reasoning behind it?
Pascal also ventured into attempts to prove the existence of God. He came up with the Pascal’s wager which argues that we cannot ascertain God’s existence by mere reasoning. It states that if God does not exist, then it does not matter how a person wagers for they will have nothing to lose or gain in death. But if he does exist, eternity is only acquired by believing and lost by not believing. The main reasoning behind Pascal’s wager is that God is either existent or not and it is a matter of weighing which wager puts one in a safe position.
Problems with Pascal’s Wager
However, this wager seems to bifurcate on God’s existence by creating two alternatives only where else a number of them are possible (Lawhead, 2014). It only addresses Christianity, God and afterlife in comparison to atheism and afterlife. It does not look at the possibility of there being some other God and the issue of atheism without afterlife. It also does not assure people of which god is likely to be the right one, leaving people with a high probability of choosing the wrong God (Lawhead, 2014).
The problem of evil according to western religion perception, its solution and why it fails.
The westerners wonder how there can be a God who is said to be caring and powerful yet allows evil to exist. A solution that is presented to counter the problem of evil is the claim that if there is a moral law then there is a moral Law-giver (Lawhead, 2014). This implies that the reason why we have evil and good is probably because there is a standard law that when broken evil is committed. This claim, however, fails because most people, especially atheists, argue that their discernment of evil is not as a result of an absolute moral law but rather as a result of their own moral view.
The difference between Hindu and Buddhist concepts of Karma.
Hindus believe that they can come back as human or any other life form, where else, Buddhists believe that the form in which one comes back to life is consequential. Those with negative karma could come back as animals or in a hell, where else, those with positive karma could come back to life in heaven.
The Hindu and Buddhist solution to the problem of evil.
Again, both Hindus and Buddhists do not believe in the existence of good or evil. To them these are just worldly terms. They believe evil exists in the world we perceive. They believe that the world is all God or Nirvana and it does not exist separately and evil is not a part of the world.
Reference
Lawhead, W. F. (2014). The Philosophical Approach: An Interactive approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
