weaknesses of ontological argument The Ontological Argument was‚ and still is‚ a hot-topic for debate among philosophers; many famous philosophers have published criticisms of the theory including Immanuel Kant and St. Thomas Aquinas. This obviously raises questions regarding whether or not this argument works. While there is no clear-cut answer to these questions‚ I personally believe that the negatives of this argument outweigh the positives‚ thereby making it a weak argument. The first published
Premium Ontology Metaphysics Ontological argument
This first stream of celebrity music fandom-as-religion literature demonstrates the type of argument many scholars favor when encountering expression of fan sentiment‚ fan action‚ and the structural and functional purpose of fandom. A second‚ smaller‚ stream of literature aligns or characterizes fandom as a cult‚ sometimes literally‚ while a third stream challenges the celebrity music fandom-as-religion argument. This
Premium
STEPS IN EVALUATING AN ARGUMENT The following four steps are an efficient way to apply what you learned in this chapter—in other words‚ to evaluate your argument and overcome any errors in validity or truth that it may contain. 1. State your argument fully‚ as clearly as you can. Be sure to identify any hidden premises and‚ if the argument is complex‚ to express all parts of it. 2. Examine each part of your argument for errors affecting truth. (To be sure this examination is not perfunctory
Premium Logic Reasoning
law they are considered to be the morally correct action‚ but when actions go against the law they are deemed immoral. The magisterium views homosexual acts to be against the natural law‚ because they are not considered to be complementary. This argument requires an acceptance that male-female sex is considered correct because anatomically male and female parts fit together‚ and have the capacity to create new life. This approach holds validity in that it accepts the biological necessity that life
Premium Homosexuality Marriage Sexual orientation
addressing our argument to a group of representatives from corporate companies in the country. In 2011 we successfully held a fundraising event which helped us raise enough funding to support the activities of our organization. We used the funding to buy the healthiest vegetables from local farmers and purchase only the naturally raised meat. While our goal is to fight hunger in the country‚ we also maintain an eco-friendly outlook. A clear statement of purpose for the argument After the financial
Premium Logic Hunger Argument
In his “Letters from a Birmingham jail‚” MLK pinpoints one of the biggest flaws in the anti-civil disobedience arguments. He states that many people more scrutinze the protest more closely than the “conditions that brought about the demonstrations.”(King‚ Jr) He calls this argument a “superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes.”(King‚ Jr.) MLK understood that he and the people
Premium Martin Luther King Jr. Civil disobedience
articles contain logical fallicies in their argument and use many of the same tactics to argue their point such as scare tactics‚ statistics‚ and quotes from people on the other side of the argument. However‚ the “Times of Trenton” editorial is able to cover up these fallicies and present their side in a cleaner and more efficient way than the “New York Daily News” by making the statistics seem more credible‚ the quotes from the other side of the argument more persuasive‚ and the overall organization
Free Homosexuality Same-sex marriage
The first argument is by J.J Thomson regarding abortion when it happens during consensual sex. She says that the woman has no obligation to keep the child‚ even though the woman had consensual sex and understood that she could become pregnant. Marquis talks about how everyone has a FLO account‚ and abortion would be killing‚ and killing causes premature death‚ so therefore‚ he believes that abortion is immoral in all cases including consensual sex. Judith Jarvis Thomson gives an analogy when it
Premium Abortion Pregnancy Abortion debate
that disagreements lead to arguments and dissensions lead to quarrels. I believe that Boorstin’s argument is valid when he claims that disagreements cause debates; during the presidential debates‚ two opposing sides are not in agreement with one another‚ therefore‚ they will debate over the topic. Another example is when a student is in a classroom setting and his or her peer makes a comment that the student does not accept to be true. The student will conduct an argument regarding the topic‚ however
Premium Democracy Political philosophy Government
limits‚ He has no affinity to us’’ (Pascal‚ 2). Throughout Pascal’s argument he makes the constant notion believing in order to gain finite happiness‚ how is it possible to know if God is willing to provide this infinite gain if he is infinitely incomprehensible? This critical mistake is the very reason Pascal’s argument doesn’t work‚ we just don’t have the knowledge to know about what truly happens after death. Pascal makes his argument for God by noting “you must wager. It is not optional” (Pascal‚
Premium God Christianity Jesus