Showing posts with label god args. Show all posts
Showing posts with label god args. Show all posts

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Reading Response #4

Reading response #4 is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, November 14th, for the Holy Cross class, and Tuesday, November 20th, for the early morning class. The assignment is to write a one- to two-page response on the following:
Explain and philosophically defend your opinion about God. Do you believe God exists? Doesn't exist? Are you agnostic? By "philosophically defend" your opinion, I mean present an argument for why you believe what you believe. Feel free to use one or more of the arguments we've discussed in class. You can also come up with your own reasons.

Also, briefly say whether your opinion about God has changed at all after this section on philosophy of religion in this class. Have your reasons that support your opinion about God changed?

Thursday, November 1, 2007

Like a Watch, Only More So

Here are some links on the design argument for God's existence. First is a radio interview on Hume's criticisms of the design arg. Second is an article on evolution versus intelligent design.

Third is the article we discussed in class about all the "design flaws" in nature. Finally, here's an article on the new research that might show the appendix serves a purpose, and so wouldn't count as a design flaw. (Thanks to Tiffany for pointing this out in class!)

Finally, the National Public Radio show Fresh Air ran a pair of interviews with two scientists talking about whether God exists. The conversations touch on a lot of things we've been discussing in class.
Hey, where's the interview with an agnostic? The media are so biased toward those with opinions.

If you've read a good article on intelligent design, recommend it to us by emailing me or posting the link in the comments section of this post.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Think [Tap-Dance] God

There's a philosophy comic strip that ran a whole series on the ontological argument that god exists. Here are links to the comics:




If you're still jonesing for the a priori, there's also this entry on ontological arguments in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Finally, here's what Guanilo said to Anselm after he presented Anselm his "Greatest Possible Island" criticism:

you just got served

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Reading Response #2

Reading Response #2 is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, October 17th (for the Holy Cross class) or Thursday, October 18th (for the Tuesday/Thursday classes). The assignment is to write a 250- to 500-word essay in which you address the following:

In your own words, explain what you think the best version of the cosmological argument is. Then philosophically evaluate this version.
As a reminder, we are discussing three different versions of the cosmological argument in class: (1) Thomas Aquinas's "first cause" version, (2) an abductive (inference to the best explanation) version, and (3) Richard Taylor's version. Aquinas's and Taylor's versions are in the textbook, but we're only talking about the abductive version in class.

empirical proof of an infinite regress