The trouble with most people is that they think with their hopes or fears or wishes rather than with their minds. – Will Durant

ایراد بیشتر مردم این است که بجای مغزهایشان با آرزوها، یا ترس ها، یا امیدهایشان فکر می کنند.

Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors. – Thomas Huxley

Wireless logic to believe a truth زیانبارتر of belief is wrong, that it to believe the argument..

Something that comes more (Except for the introduction which I wrote) Pages 127-141 mainly from this book.:

Solomon, R. C. (2005). Introducing philosophy: a text with integrated readings (8th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

The first person that the theology or تئولوژی A branch of science, to bring the number of Aristotle was. Aristotle claimed to be anything in the world and the cause of the first cause is God. Later in the modern era people like Descartes or John Locke is the existence of God as the first cause and knew information. Today less than someone who is there proof of God claims in the area of knowledge, because we know such concepts as God to the whole gamut of outside view and test (Scientific method) Are. In addition to proving the existence of God is the most basic requirement of being scientific, has been tested (testability) And Falsifiability (falsifiability), Does not. (According to The philosopher of science Karl paper,) Whatever is not revocable, could not be a scientific. However, there are still those who believe in other ways, such as the God of wisdom برهانهای is verifiable.

To prove the existence of God there is a demonstration of the three categories: (1.) Despite being برهانهای (Ontological arguments) That is of the essence and existence of God tries to prove him to have. (2.) Causal برهانهای (Cosmological arguments) Such as the argument from Aristotle, who tried to prove the existence of God as the first cause to have. (3.) The برهانهایی of the world to prove the existence of God Affairs regulations arrive (Teleological arguments).

All of these براهین were in the U.S. history and مخالفانی. But the most important and hardest of this category is brhanha, Prime برهانهای. In a piece about برهان صدیقین ابن سینا I wrote, I explained that Avicenna was later by some Muslim philosophers– Like Ghazali–Was criticized for proving the existence of God but deny the existence of non-برهانهای the first batch has been trying that the existence of God, the essence of the way God fixed and have to rely on mere logic.

In this post we simply برهانهای the first category. But before this get it wrong reasons; the arguments are and must be the fundamental concept to learn a few.

A variety of logical reasoning

Generally there are two types of logical reasoning. The first type argument to استنتاجی (deduction) Or to the The entire argument except It is famous. The second type of inductive reasoning and (induction) Or But the analogy to the whole Is. استنتاجی in the argument if the argument is a valid assumptions and rules to be followed necessarily results logic is correct. In inductive reasoning is correct assumptions, the result does not prove its existence, but also strengthens. So this is a definite ruling on this type of argument is not given. Inductive reasoning more scientific assumptions used for.

The arguments are different types of استنتاجی. Below are the types of these arguments we learn:

(1.) استئنایی or breakdown of law analogy (affirming the antecedent/Modus ponens)

The first assumption: If a is true, then b is correct;.

The second assumption: (A) is correct.

The result of the: B. be sure is correct.

(2.) The logical analogy or سیلوجیزم (syllogism)

The first assumption: If z is correct; (b) is correct.

The second assumption: If b is correct; (c) the time is correct.

The result of the: If z is correct; (c) certainly is correct.

(3.) The rejection of the TULLY (Modus tollens)

The first assumption: If z is correct; (b) is correct.

The second assumption: (B) is not correct.

The result of the: A. certainly not correct.

Please note that being a valid argument (validity) It does not necessarily mean an impeccable (soundness) Offline. An argument might be valid but not flawless. To make a long argument is correct should be valid and should be flawless. The argument is a valid argument that logical rules to get a result from assumptions used to. A flawless argument argument is that besides being a valid argument, the assumptions to be true. For example, see this reasoning:

All whales are pigeons. All doves are Eagle. We conclude that all whales are Eagle.

This argument is valid but not flawless. Because the assumptions of the argument is false. Therefore, while the astdlalman is valid and the rules of logic to achieve the correct result is not used;. To be sure, if an invalid argument is a flaw. But if it is valid can be flawless or flawless.. If an argument is valid and the flawless استنتاجی–Meaning of logical rules to follow and have the correct mfrwadatsh.–Then the result of it is correct and make sure the argument necessarily. The more we can show why these arguments are valid, but not flawless.

The argument anslm

Saint ansam Canterbury (Holy, ansam in English to anslm is famous.) The first was that the efforts of the existence of God God's essence will prove.

انسامِ of Canterbury (Anselm of Canterbury) That was the first to prove the existence of God will Borhani efforts based on the essence of God bring. The argument from the لایبنیتز and Espinosa also raised, but the ansam was the first that it will provide:

…O Lord! Since you've got to have faith in my ability to figure out the بخشیدی understanding; to me that you're there, as we believe and you're inventory it that we believe you are. Now we believe that you are a creature that no inventory beyond him not imagine. Could such a creature; as in the hearts of your idiot says: Not a God?^I But when the same Doodle what I say hears– “Inventory Inventory beyond which no he is not conceivable.” –Heard what that understands. And what is the part of the ins understands, even if there is a nfahmad that it. Because that is an existing understanding is one thing and to know that there are other things available. When a painter wants something the first color it in your understanding, but don't imagine brings is something that still there are not color. But when it's your brand will also understand d and knows what colors there are,. Even a fool should be convinced; there is no inventory from which the superior; at least in understanding him there. Because it is time when it hears it understands. And everything that is in their understanding understands. It is obvious what that something is is not just the superior understanding of it does not exist. Because if there is only understandable, can in fact also be there. Safeguard [That there is a real-world understanding of what there is in the] Is superior. So what if it's something that the superior is not only conceivable in understanding exist, what there is of it, the top is something that there is a superior. It is impossible to issue vazha. Without a doubt, it's something from which there is no superior, there are both in understanding and in fact.

Understand the reasoning simple ansam. The existence of God is defined that inventory “It is not conceivable something superior.” Ansam later asks: “Which is superior? What is just in understanding (Fantasy) Come or what actually there?” The answer is certainly that is something that in the universe there are actually. Since God is, according to تعریفش, the inventory from which there is no superior; therefore, it must be sure to be there. God could not exist even in fantasy.

The argument Descartes

Rene Descartes as the father of modern philosophy has a reputation.

The argument anslm for five centuries in the Christian world remained intact until the 7th century Descartes as a more comprehensive *. There are clear that "Descartes have had, such as color, shape," weight, and the size is. One thing can be, or have this property or not. Some things, of course, for some properties are essential. For example, three sides to the triangle is essential. Descartes believed that perfection is the most essential to complete the existing. And there is a perfection. No one can make available the most complete there without having the impression as I cannot imagine the three corners of the triangle without.

Descartes says:

I can't imagine the existence of God without having my property.

(The existence of God is not separable zattsh.)

So there is a God.

She adds:

My impression of God is that he has all of the primal is.

There is a perfection.

Therefore God necessarily exists.

The first objection

Two of the argument Descartes is valid but this reasoning are impeccable? If, because of the introduction of a right to make arguments will be valid and must be flawless. To know this subject; imagine we are a fictional creature called "the Caspian barbel» defines that this is conceivable available زردترین available. Now, what is zardter? There is a yellow creature that is really in our imagination or the Caspian barbel? It is obvious what there is zardter and زردترین, because the existing Caspian barbel introduced; ERGO there must be!

The second objection of Kant

Emmanuel Kant by many as the most prominent modern philosophy character known to be.

Kant's argument was that the first objection of Descartes and ansam revealed

What Kant argued, there has never been a thing that could not be merely a logical subject.. There is not a proposition of having or being. For example, you can't tell if it is a round ghrmzast; Apple and there is. Because having something about Apple's specification does not say to you just to show that there is an Apple with this specification. Therefore, this specification describes God spent several subject but this should not be included in this attribute of God out there.

In other words, Kant argues that the existence of having part of the two-argument default is high. The same thing that you do when you imagine God you thought to. Therefore, this argument is valid, although not flawless, but because the premise of the argument is not correct and nothing has proved that it has assumed from the beginning.

1. Refers to the phrase of the King James Bible, hymn, the first part fourteen
   The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Psalm 14:1-7 KJV [↪]