Philosophy paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Philosophy paper - Essay ExampleTheir affiliation determines who they deal and dont like. If Euthyphro says What is dear to the gods is prayerful, what is non is im devotional then it would be proven illogical in Socrates counter job that Athena and Ares consider the same group of people both pious and impious. These qualities should be universal scarce they be non. This is the principle of Euthyphros Dilemma.(Round 3) The gods can agree and be universal in their choices. Definition Round 3 the pious is what all gods revere.. and what all the gods hate, is the impious Socrates gives strenuous opposition because the answer is not straight forward. Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods? Euthyphro agrees that it cannot be answered universally. The gods love some things because they are pious or good. This shows that that the god- loved and pious choose to be different. The idea of right(a) and wrong hav e to have an intrinsic anchor. Socrates goes ahead an explains cause and effect. Euthyphros arguments cannot only be based on the same laws of the physical universe. He based his laws of piety on the same laws of the physical universe. The laws of piety are not rules and regulations which can been governed by gods or bodies of government. The best answer accepted by both Socrates and Euthyphro is to query one because the pious can be immaterial grammatically as it can be a person or an animal. The moment gods like it the thing becomes pious. The Euthyphro Dilemma is presented by Socrates as showing that pious cannot be grammatically defined as it was done in ancient Greek. 2)If the Universe is like a travel along the universe represents a complex organism of parts which function together . Paley never bring ons the similarity but compares the universe to a rock in the woods and a experience. He uses this comparison to develop his version of the Design argument which is later re futed by Humes counter arguments. He knows that a rock would not be easily accepted as having a Designer as a creator. Using the watch as an analogy to the comparison to the reality assumes that there is a designer to the universe who must be God. Functionality assumes a designer which assumes the globe of God. The watch analogy shows the complexity of natural order and thus an existence of a creator. The natural events in life cannot be contributed to happenstance. Yes a watch has problems as does nature. A watch has a maker though you dont see him. You cannot see the inner workings of the watch though they exist. They have been put together as the universe was put together. They were knowing before they were created. The universe functions because of the work of the movement of an omnipotent designer. Even though the watch can have problems in working properly, it was designed in its inception. A perfect example would be the climatic problems we are having in the world. The we ather system was designed but it is not working as it should. If the watch is missing a battery or call for to be taken to a watch maker because it is no longer keeping proper time, these are two conditions we would not be able to fix because of our lack of understanding. This does not assume that there was not a designer. The casing of the watch as well as all other items in the world have structure, otherwise there would be total chaos. The watch would not be able to see to it together its parts. He uses a deductive argument if noticeable things were