:: wikimiki.org ::

ArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod

ArgumentsForTheExistenceOfGod

Many arguments about the existence of God have been proposed by philosophers, theologians, and other thinkers. This article lists some of the more common arguments, especially those covered in the area of philosophy of religion. In philosophical terminology, this article introduces schools of thought on the epistemology of the ontology of God.

What is God? (Definition of God's existence)

:See main articles: Definition, God, Deity, Ontology What does it mean to assert "God exists"? In this context, the term "God" has typically been used to mean the monotheistic concept of a singular Supreme Being. One common definition of God assumes some combination of qualities such as omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence. This definition is not the only possible definition of "god." Many polytheistic religions have given the name "god" to several beings, all of whose existence is posited by these faiths. Mythologies affirm that these gods have various agendas, can trick one another, and sometimes oppose each other, all attributes that would appear to contradict omnipotence, omniscience, or benevolence. Still, all of them count as gods. In terms of the philosophy of language, one Wittgensteinian approach to the problem would be to extract a working definition of "God" from the various literatures and traditions that speak of Gods and their activities. How do people use the word "God?" What do they mean when they speak of "Gods?" In order to assess the validity of any attempted argument for the existence of a God, we must first satisfy ourselves of what would fulfill those criteria.

The problem of the supernatural

One problem immediately posed by the question of the existence of a God is that human traditional beliefs usually grant God various supernatural powers, including the power to work miracles. Supernatural beings can assumably conceal themselves and reveal themselves for their own purposes, as for example in the tale of Baucis and Philemon. The supernatural abilities of God are often offered to explain the inability of empirical methods to investigate God's existence. In Karl Popper's philosophy of science, the assertion of the existence of a supernatural God would be a non-falsifiable hypothesis, not amenable to scientific investigation. Proponents of intelligent design believe there is empirical evidence pointing to the existence of an intelligent creator, though their claims are frequently challenged by the scientific community. Since ID typically relies on a shrinking pool of arguments related to the Fine-tuning problem which have not yet been resolved by natural explanations, the creator implied by ID equates to the pejorative God of the gaps. Logical positivists, such as Rudolph Carnap and A. J. Ayer view any talk of gods as literally nonsense. For the logical positivists and adherents of similar schools of thought, statements about religious or other transcendent experiences could not have a truth value, and were deemed to be without meaning.

How do we know?

:See main articles: Epistemology, Sociology of knowledge Knowledge in the sense of "understanding of a fact or truth" can be divided in a posteriori knowledge, based on experience or deduction (see methodology), and a priori knowledge from introspection, axioms or self-evidence. Knowledge can also be described as a psychological state, since in a strict sense there can never be a posteriori knowledge proper (see relativism). Much of the disagreement about "proofs" of God's existence is due to different conceptions not only of the term "God" but also the terms "proof", "truth" and "knowledge". Religious belief from revelation or enlightenment (satori) falls in the second, a priori class of "knowledge".

Positions on the Existence of God

Positions on the existence of God can be roughly divided into two camps: Theist and Atheist. Both of these camps can be further divided into two groups each, based on the belief of whether or not their position can be conclusively proven.

Theism

Theism is simply the view that God exists. Some theists believe that the existence of God or gods can be proven through independent arguments, while others do not. The tradition of providing arguments for the existence of God on independent grounds is known as natural theology. Thus, to be a theist one need not believe that the existence of God can be proven.

God exists and this can be proven

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following the Thomist tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas and the dogmatic definition of the First Vatican Council, affirms that it is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that God's existence can in fact be rationally demonstrated. Some other Christians in different denominations hold similar views. On this view, a distinction is to be drawn between (1) doctrines that belong essentially to faith and cannot be proved, such as the doctrine of the Trinity or the Incarnation, and (2) doctrines that can be accepted by faith but can also be known by reason; that is, truths revealed by special revelation and by general revelation. The existence of God is said to be one of the latter. As a theological defense of this view, one might cite Paul's claim that pagans were without excuse because "since the creation of the world [God's] invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made" (Rom. 1:20). Another apologetical school of thought, a sort of synthesis of various existing Dutch and American Reformed thinkers (such as, Abraham Kuyper, Benjamin Warfield, Herman Dooyeweerd), emerged in the late 1920's. This school was instituted by Cornelius Van Til, and came to be popularly called Presuppositional apologetics (though Van Til himself felt "Transcendental" would be a more accurate title). The main distinction between this approach and the more classical evidentialist approach mentioned above is that the Presuppositionalist denies any common ground between the believer and the non-believer, except that which the non-believer denies, namely, the assumption of the truth of the theistic worldview. In other words, Presuppositionalists don't believe that the existence of God can be proven by appeal to raw, uninterpreted (or, "brute") facts, which have the same (theoretical) meaning to people with fundamentally different worldviews, because they deny that such a condition is even possible. They claim that the only possible proof for the existence of God is that the very same belief is the necessary condition to the intelligibility of all other human experience and action. In other words, they attempt to prove the existence of God by means of appeal to the alleged transcendental necessity of the belief -- indirectly (by appeal to the allegedly unavowed presuppositions of the non-believer's worldview) rather than directly (by appeal to some form of common factuality). In practice this school utilizes what have come to be known as Transcendental Arguments for the Existence of God. In these arguments they claim to demonstrate that all human experience and action (even the condition of unbelief, itself) is a proof for the existence of God, because God's existence is the necessary condition of their intelligibility.

God exists, but this cannot be proven

Others have suggested that the several logical and philosophical arguments for the existence of God miss the point. The word god has a meaning in human culture and history that does not correspond to the beings whose necessity is proven by such arguments, assuming they are valid proofs. The real question is not whether a "most perfect being" or an "uncaused first cause" exist; the real question is whether Yahweh or Vishnu or Zeus, or some other deity of attested human religion, exists, and if so which deity. The proofs do not resolve that issue. Blaise Pascal suggested this objection in his Pensées when he wrote "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — not the god of the philosophers!", see also Pascal's wager. Some Christians note that the Christian faith teaches salvation is by faith, and that faith is reliance upon the faithfulness of God, which has little to do with the believer's ability to comprehend that in which he trusts. In other words, if Christian theology is true, then God's existence can never be demonstrated, either by empirical means or by philosophical argument. The most extreme example of this position is called fideism, which holds that faith is simply the will to believe, and argues that if God's existence were rationally demonstrable, faith in His existence would become superfluous. In The Justification of Knowledge, the Calvinist theologian Robert L. Reymond argues that believers should not attempt to prove the existence of God. Since he believes all such proofs are fundamentally unsound, believers should not place their confidence in them, much less resort to them in discussions with non-believers; rather, they should accept the content of revelation by faith. Reymond's position is similar to that of his mentor, Gordon Clark, which holds that all worldviews are based on certain unprovable first premises (or, axioms), and therefore are ultimately unprovable. The Christian theist therefore must simply choose to start with Christianity rather than anything else, by an unreasoned "leap of faith". This position is also sometimes called Presuppositional apologetics, but should not be confused with the Van Tillian variety discussed above. An intermediate position is that of Alvin Plantinga who holds that a specific form of modal logic and an appeal to world-indexed properties render belief in the existence of God rational and justified, even though the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. Plantinga equates knowledge of God's existence with kinds of knowledge that are rational but do not proceed through demonstration, such as sensory knowledge.

Atheism

Atheism is, in general, the view that there exists no God or gods. However, there are two main forms of atheism: strong and weak.

Strong Atheism

Strong atheism (or explicit atheism) is the position that God or gods do not exist. It is contrasted with weak atheism, which is the lack or absence of belief in God or gods, without the claim that God or gods do not exist. The strong atheist positively asserts, at least, that no God or gods exist, and may go further and claim that the existence of some or all gods is logically impossible. For example, strong atheists commonly claim that the combination of attributes which God may be asserted to have (e.g., omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence, etc) is logically contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore that the existence of such a God is a priori impossible. Or explicit atheism may argue that any assertions about supernatural existence are irrational and are therefore a priori false.

Weak Atheism

Weak atheism is the position that God or gods do not exist, but this cannot be proven; or an absence of belief in God or gods because their existence can not be proven. Weak atheists argue that merely pointing out the flaws or lack of soundness in all arguments for the existence of God is sufficient to show that God's existence is less probable than his nonexistence; by Occam's Razor (the principle of parsimony), the burden of proof lies on the advocate of that alternative which is less probable. By this reasoning, an atheist who is able to refute any argument for the existence of God encountered is justified in taking an atheist view; atheism is thus the "default" position. This objection is often stated in terms that relate it to the burden of proof: It is incumbent upon advocates of a God's existence to establish that fact, and they have not done so.

Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims - particularly theological claims, such as those in organised religion, regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities - are currently unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent. Agnostics may claim that it isn't possible to have absolute or certain spiritual knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no such knowledge. In both cases, agnosticism involves some form of skepticism towards religious statements. The word "agnostic" comes from the Greek a (without) and gnosis (knowledge). The terms agnosticism and agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and are commonly used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion.

Arguments for the existence of God

A dispute arose as to whether there are a number of proofs of the existence of God or whether all are not merely parts of one and the same proof (cf. Dr. C. Braig, Gottesbeweis oder Gottesbeweise?, Stuttgart, 1889). While all such proofs would end in the same way, by asserting the existence of God, they do not all start at the same place. St. Thomas calls them aptly (Summ. theol., I, Q. ii, a.3) Viæ; roads to the apprehension of God which all open on the same highway.

Metaphysical arguments (for)

Metaphysical arguments for the existence of God are arguments that seek to prove the logical necessity of a being with at least one attribute that only God could have.
- The Cosmological argument, which argues that God must have been around at the start of things in order to be the "first cause".
- The Mathematical argument defines God as the Absolute Infinite, a mathematical concept.
- The Ontological argument, based on arguments about the "being greater than which nothing can be conceived".
- The Pantheistic argument defines God as All; it is similar to monism, panentheism and cosmology.

Empirical arguments (for)

Other arguments avail themselves of data beyond definitions and axioms. For example, some of these arguments require only that one assume that a non-random universe able to support life exists. These arguments include:
- The Teleological argument, which argues that the universe's order and complexity shows signs of purpose (telos), and that it must have been designed by an intelligent designer with properties that only a God could have.
- The Anthropic argument focuses on basic facts, such as our existence, to prove God.
- The Moral argument argues that morality cannot exist without God.
- The Transcendental argument for the existence of God, which argues that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense if there is no God. Therefore, atheist arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency. By contrast, there is also a Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God (see below)

Inductive arguments (for)

- Another class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly large probability but no absolute certainty. A number of obscure points, they say, always remain. In order to overcome these difficulties there is necessary either an act of the will, a religious experience, or the discernment of the misery of the world without God, so that finally the heart makes the decision. This view is maintained, among others, by the English statesman Arthur Balfour in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895). The opinions set forth in this work were adopted in France by Ferdinand Brunetière, the editor of the Revue des deux Mondes. Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same manner, as, for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his work Ist Gott tot? (Stuttgart, 1908).

Subjective arguments (for)

Subjective arguments mainly rely on the testimony or experience of certain witnesses, or the propositions of a specific revealed religion.
- The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages. A variation of this is the argument from miracles which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.
- The religious or Christological argument is specific to religions such as Christianity, and asserts that for example Jesus' life as written in the New Testament establishes his credibility, so we can believe in the truth of his statements about God. An example of this argument is the Trilemma presented by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity.
- The Majority argument argues that people in all times and in different places have believed in God, so it is unlikely that he does not exist.
- Near death experiences can sometimes imply God exists. However, the evidence obtained in near death experiences of God and his nature contradicts sharply with the dogma and concepts of many religions and imply God is not restricted to any particular single religion and its image and concepts of God. The universality of certain near death experiences across cultures also suggests a biological explanation, perhaps the reaction of any human brain to mortal trauma.

Arguments grounded in personal experience

- The Scotch School led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by us without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that we accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges us to accept them.
- The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is "properly basic"--that is, similar to statements such as "I see a chair" or "I feel pain." Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither able to be proved nor disproved; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.
- In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that our reason is able to perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to our consciousness and unites them to one another (Stöckl, Geschichte der neueren Philosophie, II, 82 sqq.). God's existence, then, cannot be proved--Jacobi, like Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality--it must be felt by the mind.
- In his Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when our understanding ponders over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of our hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly to us the truths of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.
- The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher (d. 1834), who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which we feel religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are unessential (Stöckl, loc. cit., 199 sqq.).
- Many modern Protestant theologians follow in Schleiermacher's footsteps, and teach that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished us by inner experience, feeling, and perception.
- Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God. According to them we can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the Divine dormant in our subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself to us. In condemnation of this view the oath against Modernism formulated by Pius X says: "Deum ... naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor." ("I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore His existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of Creation, as the cause is known through its effects.")

Arguments against the existence of God

There are many arguments which point out God's logically contradictory definitions, demonstrating his non-existence. For example, can God create a stone so massive he cannot lift it? Both possible answers destroy claims of God's omnipotence. Claims of an omniscient God who stands outside of time and sees all of reality in one glance are destroyed by the fact that there is at least one thing such a being could not know, namely the answer to the simple question, "What time is it?" Each of the following arguments aims at proving that some particular conception of a god either is inherently meaningless, contradictory or contradicts known scientific and historical facts, and that therefore a god thus described cannot exist.

Empirical arguments (against)

- The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the Middle Eastern, Biblical deity called God as described in holy scriptures, such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Qur'an, by identifying contradictions between different scriptures, contradictions within a single scripture, or contradictions between scripture and known facts.
- The problem of evil (or theodicy) in general, and the logical and evidential arguments from evil in particular contest the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god would not permit the existence of perceivable evil or suffering, which can easily be shown to exist.
- The argument from poor design contests the idea that a god created life, on the basis that lifeforms exhibit poor or malevolent design, which can be easily explained using evolution and naturalism.
- The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent god who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers. This argument is contested by the claim that God wants to test humans to see who has the most faith. However, this assertion is dismissed by the argument surrounding the problem of evil.

Deductive arguments (against)

- The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will by arguing that the two properties are contradictory.
- The Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God contests the existence of an intelligent creator by demonstrating that such a being would make logic and morality contingent, which is incompatible with the presuppositionalist assertion that they are necessary, and contradicts the efficacy of science. A more general line of argument based on TANG, [http://www.strongatheism.net/atheology/materialist.html materialist apologetics], seeks to generalize this argument to all necessary features of the universe and all god-concepts.
- The counter-argument against the Cosmological argument ("chicken or the egg") states that if the Universe had to be created by God because it must have a creator, then God, in turn would have had to be created by some other God, and so on. This attacks the premise that the Universe is the second cause, (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause). A common response to this is that God exists outside of time and hence needs no cause. However, such arguments can also be applied to the universe itself - that since time began when the universe did, it is non-sensical to talk about a state "before" the universe which could have caused it, since cause requires time.
- Theological noncognitivism, as used in literature, usually seeks to disprove the god-concept by showing that it is unverifiable and meaningless.

Inductive arguments (against)

- The atheist-existentialist argument for the non-existence of a perfect sentient being states that since existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. It is touched upon by Jean-Paul Sartre in Being and Nothingness. Sartre's phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms. The argument is echoed thus in Salman Rushdie's novel Grimus: "That which is complete is also dead."
- The "no reason" argument tries to show that an omnipotent or perfect being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically creating the universe, because it would have no desires since the very concept of desire is subjectively human. As the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent God cannot exist.

External links

- [http://www.apollos.ws/online-articles/ A collection of arguments for the existence of God.] from [http://www.apollos.ws/ Apollos.ws]
- [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/arguments.html Arguments for Atheism] from [http://www.infidels.org/ Infidels.org]
- [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html The Argument from the Bible] by Theodore M. Drange (1996).
- [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html A List of Biblical Contradictions] by Jim Meritt (1992).
- [http://www.strongatheism.net/library/references/ StrongAtheism.net References page] A listing of references containing atheistic arguments.
- [http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm Over Three Hundred Proofs of God's Existence] A parody of theistic arguments.

References

- Broad, C.D. [http://www.ditext.com/broad/aeg.html "Arguments for the Existence of God,"] Journal of Theological Studies 40 (1939): 16-30; 156-67.
- Jordan, Jeff. [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatic-belief-god/ "Pragmatic Arguments for Belief in God"], The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
- Cohen, Morris R. [http://www.ditext.com/cohen/dsr.html "The Dark Side of Religion,"] Religion Today, a Challenging Enigma, ed. Arthur L. Swift, Jr. (1933). Revised version in Morris Cohen, The Faith of a Liberal (1946).
- Hume, David. 1779, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Richard Popkin (ed), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1998.
- Mackie, J.L. The Miracle of Theism. Oxford, Eng.: Oxford Univ. Press, 1982.
- Nielson, Kai. Ethics Without God. London: Pemberton Books, 1973.
- Oppy, Graham. [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/ "Ontological Arguments"], The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
- Paley, William, 1802, Natural Theology. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963.
- Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford Univ. Press, 1993.
- Pojman, Louis P. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, Fourth Ed., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2003. ISBN 0-534-54364-2.
- Ratzsch, Del. [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/ "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence"], The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
- Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. New York: Clarendon, 1991.

Notes

# Alvin Plantinga. The Nature of Necessity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974) pg 63. "An object has all its world-indexed properties in every world in which it exists. So if we take an object x and a property P and worlds W and W
- such that x has the properties of having-P-in-W and having-non-P-in-W
- , we will find that x also has the properties of having-P-in-W-in-W
- and having-non-P-in-W
- -in-W." Category:Philosophical arguments Category:Theology Category:Religious philosophy and doctrine Category:Jewish mysticism Category:Jewish philosophy Category:Philosophy of religion Category:Atheism ja:神の存在証明

Deity

:This article is about deities or gods from a non-monotheistic perspective. See God for information about the monotheistic entity. :"Gods" redirects here; for the computer game, see Gods (video game). A deity or a god, is a postulated preternatural being, usually, but not always, of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings. They assume a variety of forms, but are frequently depicted as having human or animal form. Sometimes it is considered blasphemous to imagine the deity as having any concrete form. They are usually immortal. They are commonly assumed to have personalities and to possess consciousness, intellects, desires, and emotions much like humans. Such natural phenomena as lightning, floods, storms, other "acts of God," and miracles are attributed to them, and they may be thought to be the authorities or controllers of every aspect of human life (such as birth or the afterlife). Some deities are asserted to be the directors of time and fate itself, to be the givers of human law and morality, to be the ultimate judges of human worth and behavior, and to be the designers and creators of the Earth or the universe. Some of these "gods" have no power at all—they are simply worshipped.

Etymology

The English word deity is from the Latin deus, meaning 'god'. Similar is the Sanskrit deva, a god or celestial being. Related are words for the sky: Latin dies, day, divum, the open sky, Sanskrit div, diu, sky, day, shine. Also related are divine or divinity from Latin divinus from divus. See also Dyeus. The English word god is from the Anglo-Saxon, and similar words are found in many Germanic languages (see God for etymology).

Relation with humanity

Some are thought to be invisible or inaccessible to humans— to dwell mainly in otherworldly, remote or secluded and holy places, such as Heaven, Hell, the sky, the under-world, under the sea, in the high mountains, or deep forests, or in a supernatural plane or a celestial sphere—choosing but rarely to reveal or manifest themselves to humans, and to make themselves known mainly through their effects. While a monotheistic God is thought of as dwelling in Heaven, such a God is also said to be omnipresent, though invisible. Often people feel an obligation to their God. There are others however that treat their God as something that serves them. Folk religions usually contain active and worldly deities. In polytheism, gods are conceived of as a counterpart to humans. In the reconstructed and hypothetical Proto-Indo-European, humans were described as tkonion, "earthly", as opposed to the gods which were deivos, "celestial". This almost symbiotic relationship is present in many later cultures: humans are defined by their station subject to the gods, nourishing them with sacrifices, and gods are defined by their sovereignty over humans, punishing and rewarding them, but also dependent on their worship. The boundary between human and divine in most cultures is by no means absolute. Demigods are the offspring from a union of a human with a deity, and most royal houses in Antiquity claimed divine ancestors. Beginning with Djedefra (26th century BC), the Egyptian Pharaohs called themselves "Son of Ra". Some human rulers, such as the Pharaohs of the New Kingdom, the Japanese Tennos and some Roman Emperors, have been worshipped by their subjects as deities while still alive. The earliest ruler known to have claimed divinity is Naram-Sin (22nd century BC). In many cultures rulers and other prominent or holy persons may be thought to become deities upon death (see Osiris, ancestor worship, canonization).

Religion

Main article: religion. Theories and narratives about, and modes of worship of, gods are largely a matter of religion. At present, the vast majority of humans are adherents of some religion, and this has been true for at least thousands of years. Human burials from between 50,000 and 30,000 B.C. provide evidence of human belief in an afterlife and possibly in gods, although it is not clear when human belief in deities became the dominant view. Some religions are monotheistic and assert the existence of a unique god. In the English language, the common noun "god" is equivalent to "deity", while "God" (capitalized) is the name of the unique deity of monotheism. Pantheism considers the Universe itself to be a deity. Dualism is the view that there are two deities: a deity of Good who is opposed and thwarted by a deity of Evil, of equal power. Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, and Gnostic sects of Christianity are, or were, dualist. Polytheism asserts the existence of several gods, who together form a pantheon. Henotheism is a form of polytheism in which one god is worshipped as supreme. Monolatrism is a type of polytheism in which gods are believed to exert power only on those who worship them. Animism is the belief that spirits inhabit every existing thing, including plants, minerals, animals and, including all the elements, air, water, earth, and fire. The anthropologist E. B. Tylor argued that religion originally took an animist form. Theism is the view that at least one god exists. Atheism is either the denial of the existence of gods or God, or the absence of the belief that there are gods or God. It may not be readily apparent what form a religion actually takes. Religions that avow monotheism may in fact be henotheistic in that they recognize the existence of several echelons of supernatural, immortal, deity-like beings in addition to the supreme God, such as angels, saints, Satan, demons, and devils, although these beings may not be considered deities. Adherents of polytheistic religions, such as certain schools of Hinduism, may regard all gods in the pantheon as manifestations, aspects, or multiple personalities of the single supreme god, and the religions may be more akin to monotheism or henotheism than is initially apparent to an observer. The many religions do not in general agree on which gods exist, although sometimes the pantheons may overlap, or be similar except for the names of the gods. It is frequently argued that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship the same monotheistic god, although they differ in many important details. Comparative religion studies the similarities and contrasts in the views and practices of various religions. The Philosophy of religion discusses philosophical issues related to theories about gods. Narratives about gods and their deeds are referred to as myths, the study of which is mythology. The word "myth" has an overtone of fiction; so religious people commonly (although not invariably) refrain from using this term in relation to the stories about gods in which they believe themselves. In Buddhism gods are the beings in God realm of Samsara, these beings are mortal, numerous and are not worshipped; it is also common for Yidams to be called deities, although the nature of Yidams are distinct from what is normally meant by the term. The Buddhist Madhyamaka argue strongly against the existence of a universal creator or essential being (such as Brahman), yet Buddhists are not atheist or agnostic - due to these terms being strongly tied to concepts of existence. Some Prasangikas hold that even the conventional existence of universal (monotheistic) deities is a non-existent, whereas others consider that the conventional existence of such a being is an existent. Many modern Buddhists consider that deities (and God) exist in the same manner that elves or unicorns do - as an archetypal consensual entity that serves a purpose in the popular imagination; and in this limited sense, God exists. Though this may seem a rather weak basis of existence for some, as Buddhists (such as the Yogacara) deny any objective existence (of e.g. a chair), and many more deny any sort of essential existence of phenomena at all, the distinction between the existence and non-existence of consensual entities is important to Buddhist philosophy. However, a necessary requirement of Candrakirti's (Prasangika) view is that existents must not conflict with essencelessness, and it is generally agreed by them that monotheistic assertions of deity do not make much sense without some assertion of essence, which itself is vehemently rejected, so thereby monotheistic (objectively/essentially existing) gods are non-existent even in a conventional sense. Of course these arguments are more to do with the delineation of the definition of existence than anything else.

Singular God

In some cases, especially the God of monotheism, or the supreme deity of henotheistic religions, the divine entity is not thought of by some believers in the same terms as deities -- as a powerful, human-like, supernatural being -- but rather becomes esoteric, the reification of a philosophical category -- the Ultimate, the Absolute Infinite, the Transcendent, the One, the All, Existence or Being itself, the ground of being, the monistic substrate, etc. In this view, God (Allah, Brahman, Waheguru, Elohim, etc...) is not a god or deity, and the anthropomorphic mythology and iconography associated with Him is regarded as symbolism, allowing worshippers to speak and think about something which otherwise would be beyond human comprehension.

GoD

Gates of Discord (GoD, GOD, Gates, or simply the Gates expansion) is the seventh expansion released for EverQuest — a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG). The expansion focused on high-level content, providing a number of zones meant to be used by large groups of players, and many extremely powerful monsters to fight.

EverQuest: Gates of Discord

MMORPG

General information

The expansion takes place on the continent of Taelosia and introduced the Muramites, as well as the berserker character class. It features 18 zones, including many instances. It has 9 single-group instanced trials, 8 uninstanced exp zones, and 9 raid zones/instances.

Controversy

Many players and reviewers were dissatisfied by the Gates of Discord expansion; some claimed it was thus far the worst EverQuest expansion, or at least the worst since The Shadows of Luclin. Gamers perceived Gates of Discord as an unfinished product and criticized Sony Online Entertainment (SOE). The main issues were with the rushed release that had some unbeatable content, and problems with the graphics engine which was updated at the same period. Several "uberguilds" (highly powerful and influential groups of players), including Fires of Heaven, Afterlife, and Keepers of the Faith, departed from EverQuest around this time. Many of these players acted as beta testers for World of Warcraft, which was in development for release later in the year. Although by Spring of 2005 several returned, disatisfied with WoW's gameplay. In response to the overwhelming exile of players and the players' criticism towards the expansion, SOE organized a summit in the summer of 2004 to hear the main concerns of the playerbase towards Gates of Discord and EverQuest in general. The summit's guests included a handful of players from guild leaders and fan websites, among them Woody Hearn of [http://www.gucomics.com/ GU Comics].

Zones

- Abysmal Sea - location of The Queen of Thorns which serves as a city
- Barindu - The Hanging Gardens
- Ferubi - Forgotten Temple of Taelosia
- Kod'Taz - Broken Trial Grounds
- Natimbi - The Broken Shores
- Nedaria's Landing
- Qinimi - Court of Nihilia
- Qvic - Prayer Grounds of Calling
- Riwwi - Coliseum of Games
- Txevu - Lair of the Elites
- Yxtta - Pulpit of Exiles Instanced zones
- Ikkinz - Antechamber of Destruction
- Inktu'ta, the Unmasked Chapel
- Sewers of Nihilia - Emanating Crematory
- Sewers of Nihilia - Lair of Trapped Ones
- Sewers of Nihilia - Pool of Sludge
- Sewers of Nihilia - Purifying Plant
- Tacvi, Seat of the Slaver
- Tipt - The Treacherous Crags
- Uqua - the Ocean God Chantry
- Vxed - The Crumbling Caverns Category: 2004 computer and video games Category:EverQuest games and expansions Category: Massively multiplayer online role-playing games Category: PC games

Omnipotence

Omnipotence (literally, "all power") is power with no limits or inexhaustible, in other words, unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence only to God. Theists hold that examples of God's omnipotence include Creation and miracles. In most monotheistic religions, God is described as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.

Meanings of omnipotence

Between people of different faiths, or indeed even between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include: #God can not only transcend the laws of physics and probability, but God can also transcend logic (for example, God could create a square circle, or could make one equal two), because God is not bound by any limitations. #God can intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics and probability (i. e., God can create miracles), but it is impossible (and in fact meaningless) to suggest that God can rewrite the laws of logic. #God originally could intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics (miracles), and did do so when creating the universe, but then he self-obligated himself not to do so anymore in order to give humankind free will. Miracles are rare, at best, and always hidden, to prevent humans from being overwhelmed by absolute knowledge of God's existence, which could remove free will. #Omnipotence is sharply limited by neo-Aristotelian philosophers, who independently arose in Judaism, Christianity and Islam during the medieval era, and whose views still are considered normative among the intellectual elite of these faith communities even today. In this view, God never interrupts the set laws of nature; once set, they are never repealed, for God never changes his mind. These philosophers envisioned a connection between the realm of the physical and the intellectual. All physical events are held to be the results of "intellects", some of which are human, some of which are "angels". These intellects can interact in such a way as to seemingly violate the laws of nature. Since God himself created the universe and the laws therein, this is how God works in the world. However, God does not actively intervene in a temporal sense. It has been noted that this view veers away from traditional theism, and moves towards deism. #God's omnipotence does not transcend the laws of physics or logic; rather his omnipotence is measured by his mastery of these laws to which he himself is also subject. God is omnipotent in that he has reached the full potential of his species (mankind) and is as powerful as his species can be. What may appear as a miracle to a mere mortal is simply an example of God's perfect knowledge of the laws of nature and his consequent ability to make use of that omniscience. This position is implied by Mormonism and avoids paradoxes created by a strong literal meaning imputed to the trait of omnipotence by most monotheistic religions. See essential omnipotence. #God is able to do everything that is in accord with his own nature. He has no external power exerted on him, and is the source and origin of all power. The nature of God includes logic, and thus God cannot do anything which is logically absurd. God is able to alter the laws of physics since they are not part of his nature (strictly speaking, though they may be reflective of it), they are only a means to an end. Tertullian summarized this view as follows: "In one sense there will be something difficult even for God — namely, that which He has not done — not because He could not [in terms of raw power], but because He would not [in terms of self-consistency], do it. For with God, to be willing is to be able, and to be unwilling is to be unable; all that He has willed, however, He has both been able to accomplish, and has displayed His ability." #God has no boundaries, like physics or the natural laws of the world. The bible teaches us that if we could imagine the greatest things possible with God, he still can go beyond that which we could imagine.

Rejection of omnipotence

Some monotheists reject altogether the view that God is omnipotent. In Unitarian Universalism, much of Conservative and Reform Judaism, and some wings of Protestant Christianity including process theology and open theism, God is said to act in the world through persuasion, and not by coercion. God makes himself manifest in the world through inspiration and the creation of possibility, but not by miracles or violations of the laws of nature. The rejection of omnipotence generally stems from philosophical or scriptural grounds, or some combination of both.

Philosophical grounds: process theology

Process theology rejects omnipotence on a philosophical basis, arguing that omnipotence as classically understood would be less than perfect, and is therefore incompatible with the idea of a perfect God. The idea is grounded in Plato's often overlooked statement that "Being is power." :"I suggest that anything has real being that is so constituted as to possess any sort of power either to affect anything else or to be affected, in however small a degree, by the most insignificant agent, tho it be only once. I am proposing as a mark to distinguish real things: that they are nothing but power." (Plato, Sophist 247E). From this premise, Charles Hartshorne argued further that: :"Power is influence, and perfect power is perfect influence ... power must be exercised upon something, at least if by power we mean influence, control; but the something controlled cannot be absolutely inert, since the merely passive, that which has no active tendency of its own, is nothing; yet if the something acted upon is itself partly active, then there must be some resistance, however slight, to the "absolute" power, and how can power which is resisted by absolute?" (Hartshorne 89) The argument can be stated as follows: :1) God exists :2) God is perfect :3) Existence is power, :4) Since existence is power, all beings in the universe must have power. :5) If all beings have some power, then they have some power to resist God. :6) If beings have the power to resist God, then God does not have absolute power. In essence, if God has absolute power, then he has no power at all. God must therefore embody some of the characteristics of power, and some of the characteristics of persuasion. This view is known as dipolar theism. The most popular works espousing this point are from Harold Kushner (in Judaism). The need for a modified view of omnipotence was also developed by Alfred North Whitehead in the early 20th century and expanded upon by Charles Hartshorne, within the context of the theological system known as process theology.

Scriptural grounds

Some branches of Conservative and Reform Judaism, as well as Open Theism, reject omnipotence on doctrinal grounds. They note that the word "omnipotence" is absent entirely from the Hebrew Bible, and appears only once in the Christian New Testatement, in Revelation. They note that much of the narrative of the Old Testament describes God as having limited power and interacting with creation primarily through persuasion, and only occasionally through brute force. Thus, it is argued, there is no scriptural reason to adhere to omnipotence, and the adoption of the doctrine is simply a result of the synthesis of Hellenic and early Christian thought.

Paradoxes of omnipotence

Belief that God can do absolutely anything can lead to certain logical paradoxes (which some argue are not problematic, if God transcends the laws of logic). A simple example, described in more detail under omnipotence paradox, is typically phrased as follows: can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? This problem led in the High Middle Ages into invention of the concept of mathematical infinity, and laid basis on infinitesimal calculus. Combining omnipotence with omniscience into one paradox (which is not scriptural, but merely philosophical), one might ask whether God can pose a question to which he wouldn't know the answer.

References

Charles Hartshorne, Man's Vision of God, p. 89.

External links

- [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry]
- [http://reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/ric_pratt/TH.Pratt.Contradictions.pdf "Does God Observe the Law of Contradiction? ... Should We?"] by Richard Pratt, professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary Category:Jewish mysticism Category:Philosophy of religion Category:social psychology Category:self

Omniscience

Omniscience is the capacity to know everything, or at least everything that can be known about a character/s including thoughts, feelings, etc. In monotheism, this ability is typically attributed to God. It is typically contrasted with omnipotence. Omniscience is sometimes understood to also imply the capacity to know everything that will be. Foreknowledge and its compatibility with free will has been a debated topic between theists and philosophers. The argument that divine foreknowledge is not compatible with free will is known as theological fatalism. If man is truly free to choose between different alternatives, it is very difficult to understand how God could know in advance which way he will choose. Various responses have been proposed (under the assumption that God exists, and is omniscient):
- God can know in advance what I will do, because free will is to be understood only as freedom from coercion, and anything further is an illusion.
- God can know in advance what I will do, even though free will in the fullest sense of the phrase does exist. God somehow has a "middle knowledge" - that is, knowledge of how free agents will act in any given circumstances.
- It is not possible for a god to know the result of a free human choice. Omniscience should therefore be interpreted to mean "knowledge of everything that can be known". God can know what someone will do, but only by predetermining it; thus, he chooses the extent of human freedom by choosing what (if anything) to know in this way.
- God stands outside time, and therefore can know everything free agents do, since he does not know these facts "in advance". The free agent's future actions therefore remain continent to himself and others in linear time but are logically necessary to God on account of his infallibly accurate all-encompassing view. This was the solution offered by Thomas Aquinas.
- Instead of producing a parallel model in God's own infallible mind of the future contingent actions of a free agent (thus supressing the agent's free will), God encodes his knowledge of the agent's actions in the original action itself. Omniscience is also studied in game theory, where it is not necessarily an advantageous quality if one's omniscience is a published fact. For example, in the game of chicken: two people each drive a car towards the other. The first to swerve to avoid a collision loses. In such a game, the optimal outcome is to have your opponent swerve. The worst outcome is when nobody swerves. But if A knows that B is in fact omniscient, then A will simply decide to never swerve since A knows B will know A's logical decision and B will be forced to swerve to avoid a collision — this is assuming each player is logical and follows optimal strategy. Omniscience is also used in the field of literary analysis and criticism, referring to the point of view of the narrator. An omniscient narrator is almost always a third-person narrator, capable of revealing insights into characters and settings that would not be otherwise apparent from the events of the story and which no single character could be aware of.

External link

- http://main.amu.edu.pl/~zbigonys/omniscience.html Category:social psychology Category:self

Benevolence

Benevolence is a faculty from the discipline of Phrenology. Breaks down from the latin meaning 'Bene' Well willing

Definition

Benevolence characterises the true goodness of the mind, the unbiased kindness to do good. It confers thought and regard for the welfare of other people, and finds expression in sympathy and kindly gentleness and compassion, with charitableness and kindness. A weak Benevolence stands for little, if any, thought or regard for others, and a tendency to help oneself, in neglect of others.

Interaction with other faculties

- Negative Benevolence + positive Firmness: authoritarian personality without consideration and humanity.
- Negative Benevolence + positive Destructiveness: propensity for unkindness or cruelty in one form or another. Category:Phrenology Category:social psychology Category:self

Deity

Etymology

Relation with humanity

Religion

Singular God

Gods

Etymology

Relation with humanity

Religion

Singular God

Philosophy of language

Philosophy of language is the branch of philosophy that studies language. Its primary concerns include the nature of linguistic meaning, reference, language use, language learning and creation, language understanding, truth, thought and experience (to the extent that both are linguistic), communication, interpretation, and translation. At heart, the discipline is concerned with five fundamental issues.
- How are sentences composed into a meaningful whole, and what are the meanings of the parts of sentences?
- What is the nature of meaning? (What exactly is a meaning?)
- What do we do with language? (How do we use it socially? What is the purpose of language?)
- How does language relate to the mind, both of the speaker and the interpreter?
- How does language relate to the world?

Overview

translation Philosophers of language are not much concerned with what individual words or sentences mean. The nearest dictionary or encyclopedia may solve the problem of the meaning of words, and to speak a language correctly is generally to know what most sentences mean. What is more interesting for philosophers is the question of what it means for an expression to mean something. Why do expressions have the meanings they have? Which expressions have the same meaning as other expressions, and why? How can these meanings be known? And the best, and simplest, question might be, "what does the word 'meaning' mean?" In a similar vein, philosophers wonder about the relationship between meaning and truth. Philosophers tend to be less concerned with which sentences are actually true, and more with what kinds of meanings can be true or false. Some examples of questions a truth-oriented philosopher of language might ask include: Can meaningless sentences be true or false? What about sentences about things that don't exist? Is it sentences that are true or false, or is it the usage of sentences? Language, how things 'mean' something, and truth are important not just because they are used in everyday life; language shapes human development, from earliest childhood and continuing to death. Knowledge itself may be intertwined with language. Notions of self, experience, and existence may depend entirely on how language is used and what is learned through it. The topic of learning language leads to all kinds of interesting questions. Is it possible to have any thoughts without having a language? What kinds of thoughts need a language to happen? How much does language influence knowledge of the world and how one acts in it? Can anyone reason at all without using language? The philosophy of language is important because, for all of the above reasons, language is important, and language is important because it is inseparable from how one thinks and lives. People in general have a set of vital concepts which are connected with signs and symbols, including all words (symbols): "object," "love," "good," "God," "masculine," "feminine," "art," "government," and so on. By incorporating "meaning," everyone has shaped (or has had shaped for us) a view of the universe and how they have "meaning" within it. Set for the task, many philosophical discussions of language begin by clarifying terminology. Some philosophers -- for instance some semiotic outlooks, and some works by linguist Noam Chomsky -- worry that the term "language" is too vague. Entire systems have been developed to clarify the field.

History

The inquiry into language stretches back to the beginnings of western philosophy with Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. Plato argued in the dialogue Cratylus that there was a natural correctness to names. To do this, he pointed out that compound words and phrases have a range of correctness. For example, it is obviously wrong to say that the term "houseboat" is any good when referring to, say, a cat, because cats have nothing to do with houses or boats. He also argued that primitive names (or morphemes) also had a natural correctness, because each phoneme represented basic ideas or sentiments. For example, the letter and sound of "l" for Plato represented the idea of softness. However, by the end of the Cratylus, he had admitted that some social conventions were also involved, and that there were faults in the idea that phonemes had individual meanings. (A link to the full text of the Cratylus can be found [http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/cratylus.html here], courtesy of M.I.T.) Aristotle concerned himself with the issues of logic, categories, and meaning creation. He separated all things into notions of species and genus. He thought that the meaning of a predicate was established through an abstraction of the similarities between various individual things. This is called a theory of nominalism (see the section below for more details). Medieval philosophers also had some interest in the subject -- for many of them, the interest was provoked by a dependence upon their job of translating Greek texts. Of particular interest is the work of Peter Abelard, noteworthy for his remarkable anticipation of modern ideas of language. Many modern western philosophers such as Umberto Eco, Ferdinand de Saussure, J.L. Austin, J. R. Searle, Leibniz, John Locke, Vico, Johann Georg Hamann, Johann Gottfried Herder, Immanuel Kant, Hegel, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Charles Peirce and Friedrich Nietzsche also saw the field as important. Though philosophers had always discussed language, it took on a central role in philosophy beginning in the late nineteenth century, especially in the English speaking world and parts of Europe. The philosophy of language was so pervasive that for a time, in analytic philosophy circles, philosophy as a whole was understood to be a matter of mere philosophy of language. In the 20th century, "language" became an even more central 'theme' within the most diverse traditions of philosophy. The phrase "the linguistic turn", was used to describe the noteworthy emphasis that modern-day philosophers put upon language.

Major problems and sub-fields

Composition and parts

A major question in the field - perhaps the single most important question for formalist and structuralist thinkers - is, "how does the meaning of a sentence emerge out of its parts?"

Principle of compositionality

Much about composition of sentences is addressed in the work of linguistics of syntax. More logic-oriented semantics tend to look towards the principle of compositionality in order to explain the relationship between meaningful parts and whole sentences. The principle of compositionality asserts that a sentence can be understood on the basis of the meaning of the parts of the sentence (words) along with an understanding of its structure.

Problem of universals and composition

One debate that has captured the interest of many philosophers is the debate over the meaning of universals. One might ask, for example, "when people say the word, "rocks", what do they mean?" Two general answers have emerged to this question. Some have said that the expression stands for some real entity out in the world called "rocks". Others have said that it stands for some collection of particular rocks that we put into a common category. The former position has been called philosophical realism, and the latter has been called nominalism. From the radical realist's perspective, the connection between S and M is a connection between two abstract entities. There is an entity, "man", and an entity, "Socrates". These two things connect together in some way or overlap one another. Plato's theory of forms was an instance of this. From a nominalist's perspective, the connection between S and M is the connection between a particular entity (Socrates) and a vast collection of particular things (men). To say that Socrates is a man is to say that Socrates is a part of the class of "men". Another perspective is to consider "man" to be a property of the entity, "Socrates". A property is a characteristic of the thing. Still another perspective considers "man" to be the product of a propositional function. A propositional function is an operation of language that takes an entity (Socrates) and outputs a proposition. In other words, a propositional function is like an algorithm. The meaning of man is whatever takes the entity, "Socrates", and turns it into the statement, "Socrates is a man".

The nature of meaning

The answer to the question, "What is the meaning of meaning?", is not immediately obvious. One section of philosophy of language tries to answer this very question.

Types of meaning

Geoffrey Leech posited that there are two essentially different types of linguistic meaning: conceptual and associative. The conceptual meanings of an expression have to do with the definitions of words themselves, and the features of those definitions. This kind of meaning is treated by using a technique called the semantic feature analysis. The conceptual meaning of an expression inevitably involves both definition (also called "connotation" and "intension" in the literature) and extension (also called "denotation"). The associative meaning of an expression has to do with individual mental understandings of the speaker. They, in turn, can be broken up into six sub-types: connotative, collocative, social, affective, reflected and thematic (Mwihaki 2004).

Vagueness

One issue that has bothered philosophers and ordinary people for as long as there have been words is the problem of the vagueness of words. Often, meanings expressed by the speaker are not as explicit as the listener would like them to be. The consequences of vagueness can be disastrous to classical logic because they give rise to the Sorites paradox.

Ideas and meaning

To the question, "what is meaning?", some have answered "meanings are ideas". By such accounts, "ideas" are used to refer to images as held in the mind, or to mental activity in general. Each idea is understood to be necessarily about something external and/or internal, real or imaginary. For example, in contrast to the abstract meaning of the universal "dog", the referent "this dog" may mean a particular real life chihuahua. In both cases, the word is about something, but in the former it is about the class of dogs as generally understood, while in the latter it is about a very real and particular dog in the real world.

Empiricism and words

The classical empiricists are usually taken to be the most strident defenders of idea theories of meaning. David Hume is well-known for his belief that thoughts were kinds of imaginable entities. (See his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, section 2). It might be inferred that this perspective also applied to his theory of meaning. His forebearer, Locke, seemed a bit more skeptical, considering all ideas to be both imaginable objects of sensation and the very unimaginable objects of reflection. He stressed, in the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, that words are used both as signs for ideas -- but also to signify the lack of certain ideas. Mental images, sounds, and recollections have been called "mental representations" in current literature. Those who defend this view are called representationalists.

Critique of idea theories

Over the past century, idea theories of meaning have been criticized by many philosophers for several reasons. One criticism made as early as George Berkeley and as late as Ludwig Wittgenstein, was that ideas alone are unable to account for the different variations within a general meaning. For example, any hypothetical image of the meaning of "dog" has to include such varied images as a chihuahua, a pug, and a Black Lab; and this seems impossible to imagine, all of those particular breeds looking very different from one another. Another way to see this point is to question why it is that, if we have an image of a specific type of dog (say of a chihuahua), why it should be entitled to represent the entire concept. Another criticism is that some meaningful words, known as non-lexical items, don't have any meaningfully associated image. For example, the word "the" has a meaning, but one would be hard-pressed to find a mental representation that fits it. Another is a problem of composition - that it is difficult to explain how words and phrases combine into sentences if only ideas were involved in meaning. Still another objection lies in the observation that certain linguistic items name something in the real world, and are meaningful, yet which we have no mental repres