Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The argument from desire is an argument for the existence of the immortality of the soul. [1] The best-known defender of the argument is the Christian writer C. S. Lewis . Briefly and roughly, the argument states that humans' natural desire for eternal happiness must be capable of satisfaction, because all natural desires are capable of ...
Some feminists are opposed to pornography, arguing that it is an industry which exploits women and is complicit in violence against women, both in its production (where they present evidence that abuse and exploitation of women performing in pornography is rampant) and in its consumption (where pornography eroticizes the domination, humiliation, and coercion of women, and reinforces sexual and ...
The junkyard tornado argument has been taken out of its original context by theists to argue for intelligent design, and has since become a mainstay in the rejection of evolution by religious groups, even though Fred Hoyle declared himself an atheist, [1] and even though the junkyard tornado argument is considered a fallacy in its original ...
An argument from nonbelief is a philosophical argument for the nonexistence of God that asserts an inconsistency between God's existence and a world that fails to recognize such an entity. It is similar to the classic argument from evil in affirming an inconsistency between the world that exists and the world that would exist if God had certain ...
The argument from reason is a transcendental argument against metaphysical naturalism and for the existence of God (or at least a supernatural being that is the source of human reason). The best-known defender of the argument is C. S. Lewis. Lewis first defended the argument at length in his 1947 book, Miracles: A Preliminary Study.
James' central argument in "The Will to Believe" hinges on the idea that access to the evidence for whether certain beliefs are true depends crucially upon first adopting those beliefs without evidence. As an example, James argues that it can be rational to have unsupported faith in one's own ability to accomplish tasks that require confidence ...
Bioethicist David DeGrazia published a rebuttal to Benatar's arguments in 2010; despite the disagreement with Benatar's position, DeGrazia commended the book, stating: "I conclude with praise for his work and the intellectual virtues it embodies."
Alvin Plantinga's free-will defense is a logical argument developed by the American analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga and published in its final version in his 1977 book God, Freedom, and Evil. [1] Plantinga's argument is a defense against the logical problem of evil as formulated by the philosopher J. L. Mackie beginning in 1955.