How does Philo argue against cleanthes?

How does Philo argue against cleanthes?

Philo disagrees with Cleanthes and argues that just because the world is ordered, there is no reason to believe that this order is a result of intelligent design. Finally, even if the argument from design were valid, nature does not provide us with any knowledge about God other than that he designed it.

Does Philo think that cleanthes’s argument can prove that God is perfect?

Cleanthes disagrees with Demea and Philo. He thinks he can prove that, even though we do not have any direct experience of God’s attributes and operations, there is enough evidence in nature to allow us to draw justified conclusions about what God is like.

What is Paley’s watchmaker analogy?

Paley’s analogy is this: From the existence of a watch that I can see, I can infer the existence of a watchmaker who I cannot see. Equally, from the existence of the universe that I can see, I can infer the existence of its creator and designer who I cannot see.

What are the first causes or highest principles?

First cause, in philosophy, the self-created being (i.e., God) to which every chain of causes must ultimately go back. The term was used by Greek thinkers and became an underlying assumption in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Philo disagrees with Cleanthes and argues that just because the world is ordered, there is no reason to believe that this order is a result of intelligent design Philo says that if there is so much evil, there cannot be a God who is completely beneficent, or else he would have eliminated evil

Can we ever know anything for certain?

If to know something with certainty means having undoubtable, true thoughts, the answer is: We cannot even determine for certain whether we know anything about the world [ie anything that we learn through our senses], but we can know the form of our thinking (and sensing, and other faculties) for certain

Can you ever be 100 sure about anything?

No There is no such thing as 100 percent, absolute certainty

Can’t use a possibility to justify a certainty?

Fallibilism is the epistemological thesis that no belief (theory, view, thesis, and so on) can ever be rationally supported or justified in a conclusive way Always, there remains a possible doubt as to the truth of the belief

What can justify people’s beliefs?

Foundationalism – Basic beliefs justify other, non-basic beliefs Epistemic coherentism – Beliefs are justified if they cohere with other beliefs a person holds, each belief is justified if it coheres with the overall system of beliefs Infinitism – Beliefs are justified by infinite chains of reasons

What counts as a good justification?

The knowledge claim is justified with adequate evidence Justification requires Coherence with previous data and Clarity with regard to language and logic There can be no Contradiction or strong Counter evidence