7 April, 2017 19:35

Rational warrant
Philosopher Stephen Toulmin is notable for his work in the history of ideas that features the (rational) warrant: a statement that connects the premises to a conclusion. Joseph Hinman applied Toulmin’s approach in his argument for the existence of God, particularly in his book The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief. Instead of attempting to prove the existence of God, Hinman argues you can "demonstrate the rationally warranted nature of belief".
Hinman uses a wide range of studies, including ones by Robert Wuthnow, Andrew Greeley, Mathes and Kathleen Nobel to establish that mystical experiences are life-transformative in a way that is significant, positive and lasting.
He draws on additional work to add several additional major points to his argument. First, the people who have these experiences not only do not exhibit traditional signs of mental illness but, often, are in better mental and physical health than the general population due to the experience. Second, the experiences work. In other words, they provide a framework for navigating life that is useful and effective. All of the evidence of the positive effect’s of the experience upon people’s lives he, adapting a term from Derrida, terms "the trace of God": the footprints left behind that point to the impact.
Finally, he discusses how both religious experience and belief in God is, and has always been, normative among humans: people do not need to prove the existence of God. If there is no need to prove, Hinman argues, and the Trace of God (for instance, the impact of mystical experiences on them), belief in God is rationally warranted.

Raila is Using Protests for Fame and Gauge His Power.

“The unexamined life is not worth living” – Socrates (470-399 BCE) Socrates ’ belief that we must reflect upon the life we live was partly inspired by the famous phrase inscribed at the shrine of the oracle at Delphi, “Know thyself.” The key to finding value in the prophecies of the oracle was self-knowledge, not a decoder ring.

Socrates felt so passionately about the value of self-examination that he closely examined not only his own beliefs and values but those of others as well. More precisely, through his relentless questioning, he forced people to examine their own beliefs. He saw the citizens of his beloved Athens sleepwalking through life, living only for money, power, and fame, so he became famous trying to help them.

As it was with ancient Greece we are still obsessed by power, money and fame. This is clearly evident through our African leaders. Robert Mugabe has been head of Zimbabwe since the country’s independence, he has been clinging to power despite his advanced age. They say with age comes wisdom, despite the tonnes of wisdom and knowledge, from his numerous academic degrees, Mugabe has been clouded by hunger for power, money and fame to a point that despite his failing health he doesn’t want to let go of power.

Closer home is Yoweri Museveni, it’s hard to explain what he was after when he seized power through a military coup over 30Years ago but it is evident that he is not giving away the power and fame of being president. By now Besyige, who maybe charged with treason after he swore himself as president, should know that Museveni seized power and the gun that ascended him to power will be used to keep him there.

Here at home we have leaders who are so self centered to the point of displaying ignorance and stupidity then cashing on it to gain fame. They talk then think, their followers, who live unexamined lives, without placing any thought to the leaders words they act then think about their actions.

I still don’t understand the rationale behind the weekly protests by CORD and their supporters, if Raila cared about kenya the protests would be headed to EACC not IEBC. The protests would be on the war on corruption, but he can’t do that. If CORD wanted what’s good for kenya then they would be giving solutions and suggestions.

I take pity on CORD hooligans who spend their Mondays smoking teargas outside IEBC offices, then go back to Kibra on foot only to spend the night on an empty belly, while their leaders are whisked away by their security, on the first sign of teargas, to Runda and Karen in armored fuel guzzling vehicles.

Let’s take a minute and assume CORD cared about kenya and stormed to EACC offices. We would get to the bottom of so many scandals, leave alone the NYS saga, we would know what happened to funds for kazi kwa vijana, the Tokyo embassy, Triton, maize scandal, BAT scandal, Kisumu molasses plant, Mumias sugar company, just to mention afew. This can only happen in our wildest dreams, because all this scandals involve CORD principals and other CORD leaders.

The reason why we don’t seem to see all this hypocracy is because we live unexamined lives we don’t evaluate our lives and that of others, that’s why the CORD leaders easily manipulate their supporters who don’t know themselves, their lives are not worth. That’s why they are put in the front line to fulfill selfish desires of leaders which are power, money and fame.

Ontological Argument on existence of God.

Having discussed the empirical arguments by St, Thomas Aquinas I saw it fit to continue with the discussion on the Existence of God by introducing the Ontological argument which was hugely critisized by Aquinas.

The ontological argument was formulated by a group of philosophers including St. Anselm and René Descartes. The argument proposes that God’s existence is self-evident. The logic, states as follows: Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be predicated of that thing; but a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect Being contains the notion of actual existence; therefore since we have the idea of an absolutely perfect Being such a Being must really exist.

Thomas Aquinas criticized the argument for proposing a definition of God which, if God is transcendent, should be impossible for humans. Immanuel Kant criticized the proof from a logical standpoint: he stated that the term "God" really signifies two different terms: both idea of God, and God. Kant concluded that the proof is equivocation, based on the ambiguity of the word God. Kant also challenged the argument’s assumption that existence is a predicate (of perfection) because it does not add anything to the essence of a being. If existence is not a predicate, then it is not necessarily true that the greatest possible being exists.

A common rebuttal to Kant’s critique is that, although "existence" does add something to both the concept and the reality of God, the concept would be vastly different if its referent was an unreal Being. Another response to Kant is attributed to Alvin Plantinga who explains that even if one were to grant Kant that "existence" is not a real predicate, "Necessary Existence", which is the correct formulation of an understanding of God, is a real predicate, thus according to Plantinga Kant’s argument is refuted.

Empirical Arguments by St. Thomas Aquinas on Existence of God

There has been much debate, blubbering not forgetting gibberish comments on the establishment of an atheist society in Kenya who have coined a very infamous slogan "Without God" The slogan takes me back to my first year philosophy class where we were expected to write a term paper on the existence of God. There exist a wide variety of arguments on the existence of God. This arguments which can be categorized as metaphysical, logical, empirical, or subjective. The existence of God is subject to lively debate in the philosophy of religion, popular culture, and philosophy. I will offer insights to this arguments and theories starting with those by Thomas Aquinas.

St. Thomas of Aquinas tried to explain God’s existence using five empirical arguments, also referred to as Aquinas’ Five Ways. In the first part of his Summa Theologica , Thomas Aquinas developed his five arguments for God’s existence. These arguments are grounded in an Aristotelian ontology and make use of the infinite regression argument .

Aquinas did not intend to fully prove the existence of God as he is orthodoxly conceived (with all of his traditional attributes), but proposed his Five Ways as a first stage, which he built upon later in his work. Aquinas’ Five Ways argued from the unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, argument from degree , and the teleological argument.

The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.

Aquinas’ argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself, because it would have to exist before it caused itself, and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.

The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.

Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good—a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.

The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God

Arrow Paradox

In any instant, a moving object is indistinguishable from a non-moving object: Thus motion is impossible.

This is called the arrow paradox, and it’s another of Zeno’s arguments against motion. The issue here is that, in a single instant of time, zero seconds pass, and so zero motion happens. Zeno argued that if time were made up of instants, the fact that motion doesn’t happen in any particular instant would mean motion doesn’t happen.

As with the dichotomy paradox, the arrow paradox actually hints at modern understandings of quantum mechanics. In his book "Reflections on Relativity,
" Kevin Brown notes that, in the context of special relativity, an object in motion is different from an object at rest: Relativity requires that objects moving at different speeds will appear different to outside observers and will themselves have different perceptions of the world around them.