Anselm argued that the very concept of God entails its existence as a necessary consequence. If God is indeed that greatest being of which He has no equal then it is necessary that He must have the attribute of existence.
Scharlach from Habitable Worlds objects to my point 3.
I mention welfare, strikes agitating greater rights for the poor, multiculturalism, religious syncretism, sexual libertinism, and utopianism.
But the crux of his objection is more philosophical: But the question is: We should remember that when looking back at history, curious similarities arise, but they do so at incongruous joints, and their existence may not signify anything but the fact that large-scale political ecologies have limited practical expressions.
Think of it this way: A society whose political discourse and ideals sanction welfare to the poor because it is believed that the underclass is genetically inferior, incapable of taking care of itself, and might revolt if not given enough food.
Contemporary progressive policies emerge from ideals and teleological argument for gods existence essay help about morality, justice, oppression, and rights. The poor especially the dark-skinned poor deserve the welfare they get; it is theirs by Constitutional right.
It is a moral and political imperative not to take away the welfare they receive and to give them more if possible. Progressives actively try to alleviate the shame once associated with receiving welfare.
Pointing out that the poor in America have it pretty good is a distinctly right-wing thing to do. Well, you can, but. Welfare in America has become a right, a moral imperative, a matter of justice and just desserts, a thing that brings no shame, a thing to be proud of, a thing to demand, a thing to stand up for… So Scott Alexander is correct that social policies in ancient Rome look similar to contemporary progressive welfare policies.
But were the motives the same? Did the poor and the plebians get free or reduced-cost corn, grain, wine, and olive oil. Nowhere have I been able to fine a discussion of the Roman congiarium in terms of rights or justice.
The dole was there because it made the emperor more popular and demonstrated the wealth of Rome to the people. When was the last time you heard welfare policies discussed in terms of worshipful gratitude, mercy, and thankfulness?
If that were the discourse surrounding welfare policy, America would be a very different country.
It seems that Roman welfare and American welfare are as different from one another as Jubilee is from abolitionism. I will agree that the Romans used different philosophical justifications for their welfare state than do moderns, but before discussing this, a lengthy and kind of pointless also-not-a-classicist digression on why the difference may not be as big as Scharlach suggests.
If the essay is trying to compare the grateful Roman poor and the entitled, demanding modern poor, I propose that the Roman recipients of the annona were as entitled and demanding as any modern. Ancient Roman leaders automatically assumed any hiccup in the flow of free grain would lead to riots, and their assumption was justified.
You may for example read the section on Roman food riots here. Or the essay may be trying to compare a Roman attitude of giving small strategic grants of welfare to the worthy with a modern attitude that everyone deserves as much welfare as they want at all times regardless of situation or else their human rights are violated.
But here, too, I do not think the distinction is as great as is claimed. People who want welfare benefits need to jump through various bureaucratic hoops some of which are actually kind of stupid and usually receive them only for a limited amount of time.
So much for our pointless digression. I assume Scharlach read my FAQ part 3. Their social change would be a coincidence, unrelated to ours since it missed the crucial middle step that determined the shape our social change would take.
A 25th century historian, looking back at our own age, might notice two things. She would notice that suddenly, around the end of the 20th century, everyone started getting very fat. She might conclude, very rationally, that some people started a fat acceptance movement, it was successful, and so everyone became very fat.
With clearer knowledge of our era, we know better. We know that people started getting fat for, uh, reasons. It seems to have a lot to do with the greater availability and better taste of fatty, sugary foods.
It might also have to do with complicated biological reasons like hormone disrupters in our plastics. If we really needed to prove it, we could investigate whether obesity is more common in populations with good access to fat acceptance memes like, uh, Wal-Mart shoppers and American Samoans.
Its natural demographic is fat people, there are more fat people around to support it, they feel like they have strength in numbers.The Teleological Argument for God's Existence Essay Words | 2 Pages.
The Teleological Argument for God's Existence The teleological argument is also known as the argument from design. It is the idea that our world and the universe surrounding it are so intricate that it .
Existence of God Academic Essay Does God exists? give a teleological argument for the existence of God Is this question part of your Assignment? We can help Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.
Design Arguments for the Existence of God. Design arguments are empirical arguments for the existence of initiativeblog.com arguments typically, though not always, proceed by attempting to identify various empirical features of the world that constitute evidence of intelligent design and inferring God's existence as the best explanation for these features.
Existence of God In the Atheist Nightmare the argument is being presented through a design or teleological perspective. A design argument is based on the perceived evidence of design in the natural and physical world. Your point of view — unlike your opponents’ — fits in well with an increasing shift in my own thought away from traditional “narrative” history (featuring heroic figures and their ideals, achievements, and failures) and toward economics as the driving force of political and social change.
Turns out Richard Dawkins' watchmaker has 20/20 vision after all. The simplest and easiest to understand of all the arguments ever offered by believers is the Argument from Design.
The argument is remarkably simple. It goes as follows: The existence of a suit implies the existence of the tailor who.