"Original Position"

I understand the concept of Rawl's "Original Position" and how it is supposed to help quide in developing a just society, but the fact of the matter is that humans are far too developed and intelligent to ever actually implement any rules based on the "Original Position." In today's society the majority of people are only looking out for themselves and pay little attention to those who are struggling in life. At the same time, I am guilty of helping myself over others in plenty of situations. Now not all of these things are significant for example taking the last slice of pizza is not that big of a deal in the scheme of life. My main point is that in order for the "Original Position" to actually work in respect to making a just society, the rules would have to be made at the very start of the society in which everyone is literally behind a "veil of ignorance." The problem I find with is, don't you think if there were humans intelligent enough to set up a society with rules, that they are intelligent enough to know what is good and what is bad for them. Thus this leads us back to people making rules that will benefit them more than others.

Steven Lippman

Argument from Design

I want to say that this seems like a very understandable argument for someone to believe in the existence of God, so lets put this into perspective. What are some of the most creative things man has been able to develop? Computer and planes are some acceptable answers. Has man ever created anything so complex as the world, and everything in it that revolves around one another. So if a human is not capable of creating the world, then what or who is? I would agree that this is a rationally sound argument for the existence in God. Now some problems with this are, who designed God, and how come God did not make the world perfect? These again do not prove that God doesn't exist, but do give weight to the objection. The first objection seems to be a question that is answered based on someone's faith. The second though, there have been plenty of responses to such as, we would not know good, if we did not know what evil was. I think only the first objection of who created God, is the only one that has enough rational behind it to be considered a good argument.

Steven Lippman

Rational Grounding for belief in God

I do not think it is necessary to have rational grounding to believe in God. Despite the fact that it would make things a whole lot easier, I do not think that they should play an important role in deciding whether or not someone believes in God. The biggest issue with God is that those who all believe in him are basing their beliefs mainly on faith. Faith though, many say is not a logical reason for believing in God. What if we were to think of faith as some force that humans have not learned how to study yet, for example it could be force that has effect on the mental processing that tells us that there is some supreme being and that he is God. Because the existence of God is one of the main controversies that neither side can seem to formulate any rational grounding, that it is not important for someone to have rational grounding in order for them to believe in God.

Steven Lippman

Existence of God

Based on the readings I find more rationale in the justifications that God does exist. I think the most important justification that one can consider derives from facts about the governance of the world. How can something be created that works so efficiently, yet is so complex on multiple levels. I do not see any regular human being coming up with an idea that is more creative than the earth we live on. Not only that, but I do not believe that man has the knowledge to create something so complex. There are also several other good arguments that seem to be more reasonable than their counterparts.

Steven Lippman