|
I'm thinking of adding to the rationality of belief with what I've been learning in my Philosophy of religion class. The thing is, I don't think I can do it all in one fell swoop. So I'm going to edit the text here, in the /Talk? section, until it's good enough to be added to the regular page. (If this is completely wrong, let me know.) :It's not wrong, and I don't have a major complaint with it, but many people find it easier to develop articles and projects as subpages of their personal pages before inserting them into the main body of Wikipedia. Other people add a /Workshop? page off of the main article for the same purpose. I'd recommend either of these instead, since doing it on the Talk page might clutter up any debates about the article itself. --STG Many think of religion as something seperate from logic and science. Even so, there have been and will continue to be several arguments for the existance of God based on logical and scientific means rather than scripture. Three major arguments for the existance of God are the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, and the Ontological Argument. The Cosmological Argument The Teleological Argument The Ontological Argument ...More will be added when I get the time. Sorry for the part posting, but it's the only way I can do this from multiple computers and fit it in. If anyone has a complaint, please voice it. thanks. -ODiV |
|
In the second part of our examination of the philosophy of religion, we are going to be considering the merits of theism, insofar we are going to evaluate some arguments for the existence of God, and of atheism, insofar as we are going to examine one important argument against the existence of God. But we are not going to be considering the merits of agnosticism. This is simply due to time constraints. But I can at least tell you what it would mean to consider the merits of agnosticism. Agnostics claim that the existence of God cannot be known; so to examine the merits of agnosticism would involve examining whether that claim have any good arguments in its favor. It might also involve examining whether one can be, in some sense, justified in not thinking about whether or not God exists. In other words, might we be justified in simply ignoring the issue of whether or not God exists? No doubt some theists would want to take some agnostics to task for not even thinking about whether or not God exists. And I?m sure you can imagine a debate, then, between them, where the theists on one side are saying that the agnostics really ought for the sake of their souls to be thinking about whether or not God really does exist, and the agnostics on the other side are saying that they are perfectly well justified in holding that thinking about it is a total waste of time. Well anyway, we are not going to listen in on that debate, however interesting it might be, because we have bigger philosophical fish to fry. And the first item on our menu, as I said, is the question of what God is. |
|
In the second part of our examination of the philosophy of religion, we are going to be considering the merits of theism, insofar we are going to evaluate some arguments for the existence of God, and of atheism, insofar as we are going to examine one important argument against the existence of God. But we are not going to be considering the merits of agnosticism. This is simply due to time constraints. But I can at least tell you what it would mean to consider the merits of agnosticism. Agnostics claim that the existence of God cannot be known; so to examine the merits of agnosticism would involve examining whether that claim have any good arguments in its favor. It might also involve examining whether one can be, in some sense, justified in not thinking about whether or not God exists. In other words, might we be justified in simply ignoring the issue of whether or not God exists? No doubt some theists would want to take some agnostics to task for not even thinking about whether or not God exists. And I?m sure you can imagine a debate, then, between them, where the theists on one side are saying that the agnostics really ought for the sake of their souls to be thinking about whether or not God really does exist, and the agnostics on the other side are saying that they are perfectly well justified in holding that thinking about it is a total waste of time. Well anyway, we are not going to listen in on that debate, however interesting it might be, because we have bigger philosophical fish to fry. And the first item on our menu, as I said, is the question of what God is. |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)