Free Short Essay Essay Sample

Buy Cheap Short Essay Essay

Part 1
According to Stace, there is no contradiction in holding to both free will and determinism doctrines. Free actions are activities people carry out voluntarily, while unfree actions are activities that individuals do involuntarily. The free will discussion of the current century tends to be diatribes and mono­logues protecting narrow niche points against a lot of other possible points on free will. This is a component of the indignity in philosophy. Instead of figuring out narrow niches and creating specialized fresh vocabularies of technological terminology, philosophy would be better handled by an attempt to homogenize the jargon applied in the dialectic. The dichotomy of Free Will and Determinism is a diverse subject (Stace, 1957). Philosophers discuss it in respect to significant terms such determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. For this essay Stace discusses free will and determinism under compatibilism philosophy. Compatibilism sometimes referred to as “soft” determinism is the logically con­tradictory concept that free will is attuned to determinism.
Stace asserts that free will is a moral determinant and without free will morality cannot exist. Morality is associated with what an individual must and must not do. Without freedom of choice, people is compelled to do what they do and they cannot be held responsible for actions they could not avoid doing (Stace, 957). Some philosophers have denied existence of free will and this could be attributed to incorrectn1ess in definition of the word. They have equated the word to indeterminism. To differentiate the perception of philosophers it is necessary to define act freely and acts not freely. According to Stace, acts freely done are activities whose instant causes are psychological conditions in the agent. While acts not freely done are activities whose instant causes are acts of dealings external to the agent.
Determinism is the situation that each incident is caused, in a series of events with just one likely future. Historically, there are several kinds of causes or determinisms for the single possible future (Stace, 1957). Current sophisticated compatibilists crave to comprise both “the juxtaposition of compatibilism and the theory that determinism is factual” and “the juxtaposition of compatibilism and the theory that determinism is misleading.” They desire it both ways and either, since most compatibilists nowadays are disbeliever on the truth of determinism. Incompatibilism is the concept that determin­ism and free will are mismatched. Incompatibilists nowadays comprise both hard libertarians and determinists. This perplexity, created by diagnostic language philosophers who are usually committed to lucid and unmistakable conceptualization, adds complicatedness for new stu­dents of philosophy. Stace perspectives clarify and emphasize the concept of compatibilism.
Free will is a state of moral duty, people must be certain that the theory of free will provide a sufficient foundation for it (Stace, 1957). To be apprehended morally accountable for one's activities means that individual may be impartially rewarded or punished, praised or blamed, for them. This result to a conclusion that that ethical responsibility is not merely reliable with determinism, but needs it. The supposition on which chastisement is based is that human action is causally determined. If soreness could not be grounds of truth-telling (forceful confession) there could be no validation at all for penalizing lies. If human activities and volitions were uninfluenced, it could be ineffective either to reward or punish, or certainly to do something else to correct someone’s bad behavior. The dichotomy of Free Will and Determinism has been determined by Stace. It is appropriate to conclude that Stace successfully reconciled free will with determinism. The only issue in free will and determinism reconciliation is lack of proper definition of free will by other philosophers thus making them reach wrong conclusion and claim that free will is indeterminism. 
Part 2
Philosophers have attempted to give rational proofs of God's existence that surpasses dogmatic declaration or petition to ancient scripture, “The Anthropic Cosmological Principle”. This is taken as the strongest tag in the theist dispense. The laws of the earth appear to have been formed in such a manner that planets and stars will come into existence and life can materialize. Many invariables of nature seem to be very delicately tuned for this, and the probabilities against this occurrence by prospect are astronomical. The chances against the entire possible universes are just as astronomical, yet a single one must be the real universe. Furthermore, if there are numerous universes, then a number of these will have the likelihood of life. Even if suitable, the anthropic cosmological belief assures only that planets and stars and life will exist - not intellectual life. In its feeble form, the anthropic cosmological standard merely indicates that if people are here to watch the universe, it tracks that the world must have properties that authorize intelligent life to materialize. The cosmologic arguments are asserted that everything that exists does so due to a certain cause (Fairchild, 1959). According to this philosophy if everything must be caused to exist then something or someone caused the act to exist and something is GOD. This is one of philosophical theory attempting to prove God’s existence. 
There are many approaches to this topic of God’s existence since there is diversity in religious, philosophical and scientific concepts regarding the matter. Among theists, some suppose there is only one God (monotheism), while the rests suppose in many gods (polytheism); this pose a challenge in discussing the topic. According to Nagel, existence of God is a debatable subject since different philosophers has different opinions. To try answer the question, Nagel seeks definition of God and gets all-good, all-powerful and eternal creator of the world. After getting the definition, there is need to assess existence of such a being. Nagel discusses theories to prove God’s existence. After cosmologic arguments, Nagel talks of ontological argument (Fairchild, 1959). This argument asserts that God possesses perfection and it is perfect to live than not to exist, therefore God must exist for perfection to manifest. The universe is perfectly intact with clear boundaries, different species and part of the body is perfectly intact. These are the evidences that perfection existed and so is God the perfect. However, this perfection of the world is challenged by “the problem of evil”. This bring about a philosophical topic that has been discussed extensively-how can evil exist while God is omnipotent. 
The two arguments for God’s existence (cosmologic and ontological) do not have empirical evidence of God’s existence. Nagel introduces the third theory to support God’s existence with empirical evidence. This is the argument from design; it asserts that different things and processes in the universe are integrated to conclude a mutual fitness. The intricate pattern of ends and means throughout the animate world indicate a sign of architecture (Fairchild, 1959). This asserts that the pattern of the world has been deliberately designed and instituted by a Supreme Designer. However, like any other theory of God’s existence opposing perspectives have always existed. The theory of Darwin tends to decrepit this theory of God’s existence. 
Theologies have different perception when it come to God’s existence with majority believing that God’s existence is manifested in occurrences of certain distinctive experiences. In conclusion, existence of God is provable by the three arguments though equal contradictions of these theories are also presented. This makes the topic a one without end since no tangible evidences can be claimed. 
Fairchild, E. J. (1959). Basic Beliefs. Sheridan House. Inc. Reprinted Page 209 - 216
Stace, T. W., (1957). COMPATIBILISM: Free Will Is Consistent with Determinism. NewYork: Lippincott: HarperCollins Publishers. Inc. pages 409 – 412. Retrieved on 19th December 2013 from