PHL211Paper7 - Molly Shifrin PHL 211 March 2nd, 2010 Paper...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Molly Shifrin PHL 211 March 2 nd , 2010 Paper # 7 Philo is arguing that while the argument from design does not lead to the positions he argues, it has holes in its reasoning. The argument for design, which Cleanthes presents, argues that man can know God based on the evidence that the natural world provides. Philo’s general argument is that this is just not true. The conclusions that can be drawn based on the empirical evidence that the physical world provides do not prove the God that is argued for, according to Philo. It indeed suggests a creator but not the characteristics of that creator, such as his perfection or there only being one of Him. The God that the argument for design proves could have just gotten lucky in His creation or that there were more than one deity in control when creation was manifested, equally as much as it could prove He is the omnipotent, benevolent God of most religions. I think that the best argument that Cleanthes could make in reply would be that it
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/05/2011 for the course PHL 211 taught by Professor Schueller during the Spring '10 term at Miami University.

Page1 / 2

PHL211Paper7 - Molly Shifrin PHL 211 March 2nd, 2010 Paper...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online