LOGIC. Check the validity of the following arguments:
a) If God cannot prevent evil,
it means he is not omnipotent. And if him
can prevent, but does not, means that
it is not entirely good. Or, God is just that
almighty as well as completely good. Thus,
evil does not exist.
b) "The happy life is, it seems, the con -
form with virtue. Or, it conforms to virtue
it is a life that requires serious efforts and
not one spent in the game. And we must say
that serious things are superior to
sad and funny, and the most serious activity -
the bone always belongs to the part with the most vata
from man and the most elevated man. Thus,
the activity of that which is more elevated is it
itself superior and therefore the most capable to bring
happiness" (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics)
c) "Two sentences are coherent then
when both can be true, and are incoe -
rents when one of them must be
fake. But to know if two sentences
can be true together, I must know -
fear some truths, such as the law contradicts -
you know For example, the sentences: "This tree
it's not a beech" and "This tree is a beech" no
are coherent, by virtue of the law of contradiction.
But if we put the law of contradiction itself
to the consistency test, we would find that assuming it
false everything would be incoherent with everything else.
Therefore, the laws of logic provide scaffolding -
the context or framework in which the consistency test is applied,
but they themselves cannot be demonstrated by this
test.” (Bertrand Russell, Problems of Philosophy)
d) "Since God is the absolute being
infinity, from whose attributes that express
the essence of the substance cannot be denied either,
but it exists necessarily..., if it existed
any substance apart from God she would
must be explained by some attribute of
God's; thus there would be two substances
with the same attribute - what ... is absurd;
therefore there can be no sub-
stand outside of God and therefore, therefore -
mena, it cannot even be conceived." (Spinoza,
Ethics)
e) "We see that in the world the efficient causes
they are chained to each other; but we don't see
- and this is impossible - as a cause to
be its own cause: in this case it would be
prior to its existence, which is con -
traitorous. On the other hand, we cannot
we climb from cause to cause, indefinitely; for
in a progressive series of subordinate causes,
the first produces the intermediate ones and the
intermediate produce the last; but if
raise the cause, raise the effect; so without
first cause, there would be no intermediate causes -
diarrhea, not the ultimate cause. But if it were to -
subject to an infinite number of efficient causes,
we would have no first causes and, consequently,
no ultimate effect, how would we not have a ter -
middle men, intermediate. So you have to ad -
puts a first efficient cause on this one as well
we call it God" (Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologiae)