Philosophy
I like this. Its writen by ABDUL KAREEM B YUSOPE a student from NTU. Brilliant.
But no, I'm not an aethist.
The classic arguements for religious revelations have always centred on three main branches of Epistemology, namely the Cosmological arguement for God, the Teleological argumentation and finally the Ontological Arguementation for the existential nature of God.
Today, all three major arguements have been refuted quite decisively by contemporary philosophers.
The Cosmological arguement seeks to establish that in order to better understand our place in this Universe, we may begin by asking the classic question: "Where did we come from?" One would deliberate that we came from our parents who in turn came from our grandparents and the list goes on in an infinite regress. Upon reaching 10, 9, 8,....2,..etc, we relent that the Initiator Himself must be the entity, we call God. For the Gospel says, "In the Beginning, there was the Word" or that which the Qur'an claims: "We created you from nothing. Be! And so it shall!"
Now, the proponents for these arguements would admit they employed a mathematical infinite regress. Since the tool is dynamic, one should not conveniently conclude at 0, for the tool requires one to move further to -1, -2 and so forth. Not only is this arguement fallacious, it fails to proof the premise that it seeks to affirm, that is Man ensue from God. Nonetheless, this arguement is still taught in Theology Schools today.
The second classic arguement to proof that God exists is the arguement from Design. This is a hotly debated arguement since the last century. It seeks to establish that there must indeed be a Creator that would amazingly create creatures of immense diversity, and with such acute precision. However, this arguement aims to show that there is a Creator. Again, the conclusion does not support the premise in that it may suggest a potential Designer but not necessarily a Creator. Creationism is not proven although this was the aim in mind. The reason is that one cannot conveniently conclude that a Designer translates to a Creator. This can be clearly seen in the case of how our new Biological Science campus was built. The School of Biological Science was built by Bangladeshis and Chinese workers but it was designed by Singaporean architects. Here, the Designer is not necessarily the same Creator. Hence this arguement also fails.
The last arguement for the existence of God is the Ontological arguement. This is arguement from existence. We imagine in our minds that there is indeed a Creator. However, none of us have seen God Himself. A man may have in his mind the idea of $300 in his pocket. But whether this cash actually exist in his pocket is a different matter altogether. There exists an unbridgeable gulf between what is in the mind and what is in objective reality. Here, God is but a concept.
All these arguements have been refuted albeit theological institutions are still propounding such propositions.
Today, religion is in need of a higher order of thought to justify its premises.
Freedom is an illusion. Life is too short to be wasted.
But no, I'm not an aethist.
The classic arguements for religious revelations have always centred on three main branches of Epistemology, namely the Cosmological arguement for God, the Teleological argumentation and finally the Ontological Arguementation for the existential nature of God.
Today, all three major arguements have been refuted quite decisively by contemporary philosophers.
The Cosmological arguement seeks to establish that in order to better understand our place in this Universe, we may begin by asking the classic question: "Where did we come from?" One would deliberate that we came from our parents who in turn came from our grandparents and the list goes on in an infinite regress. Upon reaching 10, 9, 8,....2,..etc, we relent that the Initiator Himself must be the entity, we call God. For the Gospel says, "In the Beginning, there was the Word" or that which the Qur'an claims: "We created you from nothing. Be! And so it shall!"
Now, the proponents for these arguements would admit they employed a mathematical infinite regress. Since the tool is dynamic, one should not conveniently conclude at 0, for the tool requires one to move further to -1, -2 and so forth. Not only is this arguement fallacious, it fails to proof the premise that it seeks to affirm, that is Man ensue from God. Nonetheless, this arguement is still taught in Theology Schools today.
The second classic arguement to proof that God exists is the arguement from Design. This is a hotly debated arguement since the last century. It seeks to establish that there must indeed be a Creator that would amazingly create creatures of immense diversity, and with such acute precision. However, this arguement aims to show that there is a Creator. Again, the conclusion does not support the premise in that it may suggest a potential Designer but not necessarily a Creator. Creationism is not proven although this was the aim in mind. The reason is that one cannot conveniently conclude that a Designer translates to a Creator. This can be clearly seen in the case of how our new Biological Science campus was built. The School of Biological Science was built by Bangladeshis and Chinese workers but it was designed by Singaporean architects. Here, the Designer is not necessarily the same Creator. Hence this arguement also fails.
The last arguement for the existence of God is the Ontological arguement. This is arguement from existence. We imagine in our minds that there is indeed a Creator. However, none of us have seen God Himself. A man may have in his mind the idea of $300 in his pocket. But whether this cash actually exist in his pocket is a different matter altogether. There exists an unbridgeable gulf between what is in the mind and what is in objective reality. Here, God is but a concept.
All these arguements have been refuted albeit theological institutions are still propounding such propositions.
Today, religion is in need of a higher order of thought to justify its premises.
Freedom is an illusion. Life is too short to be wasted.
posted by Crystane at 8:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home