You have to compare at least a few dozen base pairs before you can see the uncanny way that organisms in the same genus match up far better than organisms in different classes for example. Here, for example, is an alignment of some cytochrome C amino acid sequences from various organisms for discussion see here.
Proslogion Theologian and philosopher Anselm of Canterbury — proposed an ontological argument in the how to write a refutation argument and third chapters of his Proslogion.
The concept must exist either only in our mind, or in both our mind and in reality. If such a being exists only in our mind, then a greater being—that which exists in the mind and in reality—can be conceived this argument is generally regarded as a reductio ad absurdum because the view of the fool is proven to be inconsistent.
Therefore, if we can conceive of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, it must exist in reality. Thus, a being than which nothing greater could be conceived, which Anselm defined as God, must exist in reality.
God exists as an idea in the mind. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God that is, a greatest possible being that does exist. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.
In Chapter 3, Anselm presented a further argument in the same vein: By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God. Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality. God exists in the mind as an idea. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
He argued that if something can be conceived not to exist, then something greater can be conceived. Consequently, a thing than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot be conceived not to exist and so it must exist.
This can be read as a restatement of the argument in Chapter 2, although Norman Malcolm believed it to be a different, stronger argument.
Generally speaking, they are less formal arguments than natural intuition. Descartes wrote in the Fifth Meditation: But, if the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something entails that everything that I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of God?
Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature.
He suggested that the concept of God is that of a supremely perfect being, holding all perfections. He seems to have assumed that existence is a predicate of a perfection.
Thus, if the notion of God did not include existence, it would not be supremely perfect, as it would be lacking a perfection.
Consequently, the notion of a supremely perfect God who does not exist, Descartes argues, is unintelligible. Therefore, according to his nature, God must exist. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz saw a problem with Descartes' ontological argument: He proposed that, unless the coherence of a supremely perfect being could be demonstrated, the ontological argument fails.
Leibniz saw perfection as impossible to analyse; therefore, it would be impossible to demonstrate that all perfections are incompatible. He reasoned that all perfections can exist together in a single entity, and that Descartes' argument is still valid.
Transcendent theosophy Mulla Sadra c. Sadra discussed Avicenna's arguments for the existence of God, claiming that they were not a priori. He rejected the argument on the basis that existence precedes essenceor that the existence of human beings is more fundamental than their essence.
The argument attempts to prove the existence of God through the reality of existence, and to conclude with God's pre-eternal necessity.Feb 09, · SkepticBlog is a collaboration among some of the most recognized names in promoting science, critical thinking, and skepticism.
Regular bloggers include: Brian Dunning, Daniel Loxton, Donald Prothero, Mark Edward, Michael Shermer, and Steven Novella.
This site is . Studybay is an academic writing service for students: essays, term papers, dissertations and much more! We're trusted and chosen by many students all over the world! Go To Start: tranceformingnlp.com Introduction.
As we continue the study the consequences of premillennialism the new subject of British Israelism, or Anglo-Israelism, an Anglican phase of millennialism, is now before us. Confronting Calvinism: A Free Grace Refutation and Biblical Resolution of Radical Reformed Soteriology [Dr.
Anthony B. Badger] on tranceformingnlp.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. This work is foundational for those who are just beginning their Christian experience as well as the well-informed Bible student who is interested in effective evangelism and the topic of salvation.
Refutation Paragraphs. The refutation paragraph is normally found ONLY in argument essays and argument research papers; it is also known as the concession paragraph. When students are writing an argumentative essay, they need to acknowledge the valid points of the opposing argument, otherwise writers sound narrow-minded and thereby less effective.
So an effective refutation paragraph. A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist [Peter Kreeft] on tranceformingnlp.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
No issue is more fateful for civilization than moral relativism. History knows not one example of a successful society which repudiated moral absolutes.
Yet most attacks on relativism have been either pragmatic (looking at its social consequences) or exhorting.