Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
DESIGN ARGUMENT (A LEVEL RELIGIOUS STUDIES AQA)
- Додати в
- Мій плейлист
- Переглянути пізніше
- Поділитися
Поділитися
Вставка
Розмір відео:
- Опубліковано 9 лис 2022
- Get the full PowerPoint here: www.benwardle....
Paper 1: Philosophy of Religion & Ethics
КОМЕНТАРІ • 6
Наступне
Автоматичне відтворення
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (A LEVEL RELIGIOUS STUDIES AQA)Ben Wardle
Переглядів 7 тис.
A LEVEL RELIGIOUS STUDIES - META ETHICS (NATURALISM, INTUITIONISM & EMOTIVISM)Ben Wardle
Переглядів 4,9 тис.
MIRACLES (A LEVEL RELIGIOUS STUDIES - AQA)Ben Wardle
Переглядів 4,6 тис.
«Ми так війну не закінчимо ніколи»: 22-річний морпіх про те, чому їм потрібні молоді #війна #зсуСлідство.Інфо | Розслідування, репортажі, викриття
Переглядів 582 тис.
«Його, каже, не зламали. Ви гляньте на його очі - вони злі»: Розповідь матері полоненого бійцяСуспільне Донбас
Переглядів 663 тис.
ЕЛІАС #8. НАСТЯ ТКАЧЕНКО х ВЛАД СТЕБЛІВСЬКИЙ х КУРАН х ВЕНЯ | Ветерани космічних військВетерани космічних військ
Переглядів 522 тис.
I'm Excited To see If Kelly Can Meet This Challenge!Mini Katana
Переглядів 33 млн
Last Lecture Series: How to Live your Life at Full Power - Graham WeaverStanford Graduate School of Business
Переглядів 666 тис.
Kantian Deontology: Philosophy A-levelSam Findon
Переглядів 442
Fallacies in Proving God Exists | Episode 901 | Closer To TruthCloser To Truth
Переглядів 135 тис.
Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God HypothesisHoover Institution
Переглядів 1,7 млн
NATURAL MORAL LAW THEORY (A LEVEL RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY & ETHICS)Ben Wardle
Переглядів 7 тис.
The Teleological Argument (Argument for the Existence of God)Philosophy Vibe
Переглядів 97 тис.
RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE: VIA NEGATIVA, VIA POSITIVA & SYMBOL (A LEVEL RELIGIOUS STUDIES)Ben Wardle
Переглядів 2,6 тис.
A LEVEL RELIGIOUS STUDIES - KANT'S DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS (KANTIAN ETHICS)Ben Wardle
Переглядів 3,1 тис.
DESIGN ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD (OCR A LEVEL RELIGIOUS STUDIES - PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION)Ben Wardle
Переглядів 1,2 тис.
Eleftherios Petrounias helped by Arthur Zanetti = epic gala moment ❤️Olympics
Переглядів 46 млн
Втрачене дитинство | GOVOR TikTok #govor #shotsGOVOR
Переглядів 326 тис.
«Синку, ти не переживай. Сюди вона не впаде, вони всі повз летять»: військовий про перші дні війниСуспільне Запоріжжя
Переглядів 274 тис.
Гордон. Что Арестович пообещал русским, армия предала Путина, Лукашенко сбежал на Запад, конец РПЦВ гостях у Гордона
Переглядів 771 тис.
КУРСК в ОГНЕ, кадыровцы грызутся с ГЕНШТАБОМ РФ, а СКАБЕЕВУ послалиТелеканал ICTV
Переглядів 1,3 млн
Survive 100 Days In Nuclear Bunker, Win $500,000MrBeast
Переглядів 147 млн
ВСУ зашли в Белгородскую область. Ахмат снова сбежалOm TV
Переглядів 1,1 млн
Идеально повторил? Хотите вторую часть?⚡️КАН АНДРЕЙ⚡️
Переглядів 16 млн
Many of Hume 's objections can be answered.
Objection (1) "A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a
city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" (Dialogues)
Response:
"And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with
polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same
natural laws .
If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some
explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing
the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a
new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of
order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate
one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the
simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power
of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as
great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible
for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic
marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the
universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the
different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square
of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in
another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square
law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more
general law. " (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God")
"If the
physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than
being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only
one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad
reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the
absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced
with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more
than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the
creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than
one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for
preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the
universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and
uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the
product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single
designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been
expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural
individualities." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")
Objection (2) "[I]f we survey the universe ..., it bears a great resemblance to an
animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle
of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it ...: a
continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: the closest
sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part
or member ... operates both to its own preservation and to that of
the whole [I]t must be confessed, that... the universe resembles
more a human body than it does the works of human art and
contrivance [Y]et is the analogy also defective in many circumstances ...: no organs of sense; no seat of thought or reason; no one
precise origin of motion and action. In short, it seems to bear a
stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal." (Dialogues)
Response:
"Hume's argument seems weak. Hume's claim is that the physical
universe - more specifically, our solar system - bears a closer resemblance to some animal or a vegetable than it does some machine or
other artefact. The claim is unconvincing.
In its manifest workings,
the physical universe in general, and our own solar system in particular, exhibits a degree of regularity and predictability that far exceeds
that which is exhibited by any animal or vegetable. After all, it is by
the sun that we set our clocks and not by the comings and goings of
sun-flowers or salamanders! That this is so suggests that the physical
universe more closely resembles some regular and predictable
machine or artefact, for example a clock, than it does any far less
regular and predictable animal or vegetable." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")
Objection (3) “But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain.” (Dialogues)
Response:
"From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot
reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and
rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong
to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will
happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron,
the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the
surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence,
that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about
such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the
universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have
knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach
conclusions about the origin and development of the human race
(because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind).
The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the
original objection, which is indeed totally misguided." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God")
"By tracing the origin of
the physical universe to a supposed 'Big Bang', modern cosmology
places Hume in the following dilemma. Either, he must deny that the
physical universe as a whole is singular and unique, on the grounds
that it resembles other things besides it that explode, such as
grenades. Or, alternatively, should he insist on the uniqueness of the
physical universe, he must concede that there are some unique things
which are capable of standing as terms of causal relations." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")
Objection (4) "In such a ... succession of objects, each part is caused by that
which preceded it and causes that which succeeds it. Where then
is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer
that the uniting of parts into a whole, like the uniting of several
distinct countries into one kingdom, .. . is performed merely by
an arbitrary act of the mind and has no influence on the nature of
things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in
a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of
the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the
cause of the parts." (Dialogues)
Response:
"Consider an illustration. Suppose that the series of contingent beings were merely a series of self-propagating robots, each one bringing the next into existence. No matter how far back in time you go,
there was just one of these robots functioning. Each robot functions
for, say, ten years, then, in the last few minutes of functioning, propagates a new robot. (Just as the new robot starts to function, the old
one ceases to function and disintegrates.) Now, in this scheme, we
have a cause for the existence and functioning of each of the robots.
But we have not identified a cause of the robot series as a whole. For
example, what causes (or caused) the series to be one of robots rather
than one of rocks, roses, rats, or reindeer? What is the cause of there
being any robots at all? That question has not been answered.
In the same way, even if we know that each contingent being is
caused to exist by some other contingent being, we still do not have
an explanation for the fact that there are contingent beings. There
might have been nothing at all or only necessary beings.
" (Stephen Layman "Letters To Doubting Thomas")
a level on monday u are saving me
lol same haha
How did you find RS?
Life saver
Thank you so much this was really help full