Transcendentalism And A Belief In A higher Power :: essays research papers

Transcendentalism and A vox populi In A "Higher Power"     We do not micturate good reasons to believe in virtuallything transcendental. Mostof the commands in favor of God, or a so-called "higher(prenominal) power" atomic number 18 based onfaith and emotion, and not a clear logical argument. In fact, these argumentsare often in favor of throwing logic out the window. In umteen ways, this questionis similar to someone attempting to prove the instauration of an invisible elephant.It is furthermost easier to prove that the elephant does not exist than it is to provethat it does.     Socrates principle of examination states that we must carefully auditionall things. The tools we humans use to do this are logic and the scientificmethod. In order to believe in something transcendental, you cannot examine yourbeliefs using logic and science. If you do, there is no way to prove theexistence of a higher power.      The primary argument against the existence of a Judeo-Christian all-knowing, all-powerful, righteous God is the argument from pestiferous. This argumentargues against the presence of a higher power using facts of ordinary life. Thisargument states that most would agree that some of the pain and suffering (evil)in this world is un necessary. To be considered a necessary evil, the occurrencemust be the only way to produce something good, which outweighs the evil. legion(predicate)events, such as infant deaths, would not be classified in this category.     If such an all-knowing deity existed, it states, He would know thatthis evil was occurring. If He was all-powerful, He would have the power to obstructthis evil. If He was righteous, He would stop the evil from occurringTherefore, the existence of evil cannot be compatible with the existence of this token of God.     The primary response to the argument from evil is the appeal to humanfreedom. This argument states that God sees evil as necessary so that we humanswhitethorn be free to choose our own path. The fatal flaw in this argument is thatthere are evils that exist not as a direct result of human choice. Natural evilssuch as floods, earthquakes, and tornadoes manage no purpose according to thisdefinition, and are therefore unnecessary evils.     A theist might respond to this with another weak rebuttal, stating thatevery evil produces compassion and understanding in others, and creates good inthat regard. This is an overly positive, nearly delusional view of evil. Almosteveryone will be able to bang up with at least one example of someone who hassuffered an evil that has not directly or indirectly led to anything good.