PHIL/RS335 Fall 2017

In Hart's discussion of the ontological premise of God, he first begins with a universal experience in which all of man at some point or another has come to know. This is the idea of everything in existence having absolutely no autonomy over its own existence. Even more to this point, nothing in existence has a satisfactory answer to the question of why it exists either. If the question for a thing's existence cannot be answered by the thing that is existing, or anything else that it exists amongst, the answer then lies outside of this world in which the things that exist without autonomy over their coming to exist nor the understanding for their origination. The answer lies outside of the confounds of this world entirely. In this world, we are completely surrounded by things we could beg of the question, 'why'. So much so in fact that a feeling of anxiety begins to take place. This is the universal experience of man that Hart describes. This feeling can become an obse...

Hart explains that God is not an actual being at all. He states that God is an existence but doesn't exactly exist Hart focuses more on the definition of God. We have no real proof of God as a being so I could understand Harts claim. God does the impossible however we don't know what made God himself have a possible existence, which is something we may never understand Hart provides a reasonable argument for the existence of God. He breaks down his explanation of God without excluding the emphasis on what God truly is.

In this chapter, Hart talks about how God is not at all a being. We has humans are beings because we came from something and we have limitations. God does not exist, but is existence in itself. I don't know how I feel about Hart's point of view when it comes to his argument over the existence of God. I understand how Hart could see God as a non being, because it is assumed that God is responsible for miracles and all things unknown. However, I don't really understand how God is existence in himself. The way Hart explain God is in such a simple and plain way. However, he does not eliminate the importance of what God was, what God is, snd what God will be in the future. Hart never took any glory away from God, and he never took away all the wonderful things that God has bestowed upon this Earth and universe. All in all, Hart makes a reasonable and logical argument on the existence of God. In my opinion, this chapter was pretty straight forward and it isn't really that m...

Hart makes his point clear about his belief in God. He basically views no other way of being able to understand the universe we live in than to believe that there is a God. Hart takes a stance against atheist because he thinks that there beliefs couldn't be more wrong. He also discredits naturalism because of its inconsistent explanation. Everyone should have a clear explanation of their beliefs, what and why do they believe? Even though atheists don't believe in God they still have their own beliefs.

The Teleological Argument is based off a premise and that the world has a purpose and that it must be created by someone or something of a higher power however, since we cannot prove that there is a higher being could one say the existence of God is based solely on faith or other reasons because the world is supposedly created with a purpose? My personal belief is that it is based on faith, we don't actually know that the world was created by a higher being it's really just a belief. Nor do we know that the world was created for a purpose and even if it was the argument does not prove what that purpose was for, whether it was good, bad, or just for no reason at all. But also one can say the existence of God is based on purpose as well, for example even though we cannot prove the universe was created for a purpose we can say that certain things that exist in the universe were created for a purpose such as clothes to put on our backs, or food to nourish ourselves, or our house fo...

The Seven Ways was written by Udayana to answer the question, "Is there really a God?" Udayana then gives seven argument effects which he uses the explanation for them to prove God's existence and that God is all knowing.  Most answers to this question tend to be biased because there are some religious people with their beliefs and there are nonreligious people with their beliefs as well.  According to this argument, if you are religious then your belief that God exists is sole1y based on faith, but if you are not your belief would be based of of factual evidence and information. People who believe God exists can get the message of this argument and end up being swayed into believing he doesn't exist at all.

In chapter three, Hart's argument is in favor of the existence of God. The beginning of the book was setting up his philosophical  approach to his argument. Hart explains the existence of God through experience, which will be denoted into the phrase "experience of being."  This is vital because it reminds us that God is the deity that created every being, which is why there is a possible reason to his existence. He does not take the naturalism approach but instead defends God in the actuality an fullness of being. God is also seen as a perfect being which catches the reader's eye because we are groomed to think that God is perfect including everything that he made. Hart writes, "God is not composite and so is indissoluble, he is infinite and unconditioned and so is not dependent on anything else, he is eternal and so does not come into being." Of course we all know that an actual "being" can not live forever so he is not an actual being, but he is ...

In the third chapter of The Experience of God , Hart explains how at times we can become aware of the  world and start to question its existence and how it came to be. He also focuses of how we can find ourselves stuck in trying to figure this certain situation out. Hart says, "The world is unable to provide its account of its own actuality, and yet there it is all the same" (88-89). This is true. This is a question that I ask myself all of the time. How can the world not have any type of origin, or an origin that we can go in depth of learning about, and still exist. If we think about it the world seems to not even need us to stay "alive" because it seems to be of its self. "How is it that any reality so obviously fortuitous- so lacking in any mark of inherent necessity of explanatory self-sufficiency- can exist?"(90) This question answers itself in the sense that the world does not seem to need us for anything because as far as we know it has been exis...

In the third chapter of Hart’s Experience of God , he focuses on the experience of wonder. He describes the feeling of awareness one may feel that seems to be coming from nowhere, but in fact it is a familiar feeling that we have knowledge about. “Not, that is, a simple twinge of curiosity or bafflement regarding some fact out there not yet in one’s possession: if anything, it is the sudden awareness that no mere fact can possibly be an adequate explanation of the mystery in which one finds oneself immersed at every moment.” (87)                 This statement that Hart makes sticks out to me because it is something that some Christians, or at least myself go through from time to time. Sometimes I found myself losing sight of my faith and focusing on other things around me such as work and school, and I forget about the blessings that God has given me in my life. The everyday things that I take for granted ...

In this chapter Hart focuses a lot on the definition of God. He attempts to explain what God is and what God is not. He says, "God is not composite and so is indissoluble, he is infinite and unconditioned and so is not dependent on anything else, he is eternal and so does not come into being, he is the source of his own being and hence in him there is no division between what he is and that he is, and so on" (114). Basically, this defines God as a necessary non-contingent entity. Hart points out that referring to God as a "being" is incorrect. A "being" suggests existence but also limitations. We as humans are beings, objects that exist from other human existence. We were brought into existence by something or someone else, and that existence has boundaries and limitations. God was not brought into existence but is existence itself. Since God is non-contingent, he is not an object nor does he have limitations. Hart says that God is actuality and consists o...

In Chapter 3, Hart discusses being or ‘sat,’ which is the first part of the tri-pound word for the divine, ‘satchitananda.’ He explains God as being the source of his own being and transcendent of the world or contingent reality. Further, he claims that God is the absolute and pure actuality. Hart also explains that the idea of God being metaphysically and or logically necessary does not prove his existence. It does however provide us with a sense of appreciation for the significance of God as necessary reality. While it provides a helpful way to think of the concept of God, being able to define something doesn’t necessarily prove that it exists. Hart tells us that God transcends all plurality and limitations in one perfectly replete act of being. He also explains that we must think of God’s being as simple, as in metaphysical simplicity not inferiority. Hart concludes by agreeing the cosmological argument is powerful, and that we can rationally and honestly conclude that...

In the beginning of Being Hart eloquently describes the vast inquiries we possess about the origin of existence. He delivers various scenarios that may arise while reflecting on the mystery of reality. Hart seems to implicate a similar conclusion to Cleanthes' presumption based on the analogy of a house."The American philosopher Richard Taylor once illustrated this, mystery, famously and fetchingly, with the image of a man out for a stroll in the forest unaccountably coming upon a very large translucent sphere. Naturally, he would immediately be taken back by the sheer strangeness of the thing, and would wonder how it should happen to be there. More to the point, he would certainly never be able to believe that it just happened to be there without any cause,''(90-91). This quote further leads to the formulation of an ontological discussion about the existence of our reality. The peculiarity of the sphere is not drawn from its very nature but its existence according to ...

Hart states “to be the first cause pf the whole universal chain of per se causality, God must be wholly unconditional in every sense. He cannot be composed of and so dependent upon several constituents, physically or metaphysically, as then he would himself be conditional” and this statement is the piece of a definition of God (Hart, 134). This is the way Hart understands God to be. He cannot be related to us on any level because we are conditional, finite, and with limits. God is the beyond, the everything and the nothing, in a sense. To say God is the nothing along with the everything makes sense to me, because he is all that could ever be imagined and more, but also is something we could never comprehend completely because s/he is completely out of our element of grasp; our nothingness where no thought or understanding lives, there can be God. Hart also says God is simple. Not in the physical easy to understand simple, but in the metaphysical simple that goes over our heads. The ty...

We must think of God's being as simple. This statement that Hart believes in and reiterates in his book gives me a boost of spirits as I was reading through. The way he says we should perceive God is in His divine simplicity and I absolutely agree with this. While a lot of us think of God when we see many different things in our daily lives, I find it important to come back to the main root of what He actually is, and that is His divine simplicity. Whenever I think of this, I think of the way a tree looks and how it has hundreds of branches coming off of it. The entire tree itself is supported by the actual trunk-maybe to represent God's most simple structure-yet it has the roots underneath feeding its strength, and the branches above it. In this sense, those are represented as our actions and thoughts towards God, and the way we spread those to others. So, with God being our root, or trunk rather, whether we are praising him through our actions directly or towards others an...

Hart begins by stating his position when it comes to Atheist and their non belief. He states " I want merely to make sure that they have a clear concept of what it is they claim not to believe.(2)" I understand that he wants to help them but to them they know all they need to know. 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink'. Most atheists were at one point in time believed in the presence of God but they went through a traumatic experience that made them change their views on God and religion altogether. Hart is trying to help some but he is missing the point that some do not want to be helped. So, his efforts to some are a waste because they choose to believe that there is no higher entity. By me being raised in a Christian home I know that it is our job as Christians to save souls and help others find Jesus. But we can only do these things when someone truly wants are help.

 I couldn't resist laughing at what some atheist would grimace as a response to Hart's claims. Not asserting full agreement with his position on atheism, however ; his approach surprised me, but then again as we talked in class Wednesday, Hart believes that our society should want to engage in such a controversial, complex discussion. A compelling yet comical refutation to atheism, Hart has no hesitations with being candid in regards to his staunch position about the godless. One distinctive remark by Hart is his statement about the alternatives to rejecting God. He thinks that the alternative is precisely naturalism, or a variant relating to the ideology of Naturalism(17). To an extent I accept this claim, due to my respect for opposing atheist. I am fully aware that some digress with his claim, but his argument is truly compelling. According to Hart,'' The very notion of nature as a closed system entirely sufficient to itself is plainly one that cannot be...

In the beginning of Harts novel, he makes it very clear what his stance is on believing in God. He sees no other rational or intelligent explanation to understanding the world than to believe in God. He is also very adamant about thinking atheists are completely wrong in their belief against the existence of God. Later in the reading he brings up naturalists and how their philosophy of the world is incorrect as well. There is a science behind metaphysics and materialism, and Hart expresses his respect for the sciences. He understands the desire in scientists and philosophers to get to the source of the world or try to define or discover the “simplest constituents and most elementary functions” of reality (Hart, 78). This is Harts way, I believe, to show his respect to the people he who he discredits in their beliefs. He sees the importance for molecular studies and breaking the world down into atoms, but he also thinks that people are much more. The world cannot be u...