| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "LEIBNIZ VIEW GOD": |
|
|
Leibniz's View of God, 2006.
This paper analyzes Leibniz's view of God and the compatibility of suffering and evil.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 0 sources, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer examines the basis of Leibniz's views on evil and its compatibility with God that have been brought forth in this study. By analyzing the Monadology and Theodicy of Leibniz, one can understand the arguments in relation to unity of the universe and why God plays a central role in defining the good in relation to what is evil. The writer points out that also by comparing and contrasting the views of Descartes and Spinoza, one can realize the different forms of causality in relation to creationist ideology and why Leibniz argues for the good of God to superimpose all natural laws or points.
From the Paper
"In this philosophical study, the issue of God and the compatibility of evil in the ideology of Leibniz will be examined and analyzed. By realizing the logical omnipotence of God as a being of 'good', one can realize how evil and suffering are compatible in Leibniz's philosophy. By understanding Leibniz's Monadology and Theodicy, the basis for God's existence can be explained through comparing and contrasting Descartes and Spinoza. In essence, Leibniz seeks to make God compatible with suffering and evil in this philosophical analysis. The basis of Leibniz's philosophy in the Monadology is directly related to object that exist within the cosmos. In this manner, Leibniz found that if two comparable objects were the same, they were unified by their defining principles."
| |
|
Leibniz on God and Reason, 1994.
This paper is a critical analysis of the metaphysician Leibniz's theories on God's freedom and perfection, principle of sufficient reason, monads and internal harmony.
2,025 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 6 sources, £ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The issue is whether Leibniz can consistently advocate all of the following: 1) God's freedom; 2) God's perfection; and 3) the principle of sufficient reason. Gottfried Wilhelm Liebniz was a seventeenth century philosopher who also had many other occupations: mathematician, scientist, lawyer, diplomat, engineer, inventor, and historian. He believed that his work in all these fields was supported by his metaphysical system, and he believed in the application of reason to the development of a philosophy. Analysts find that Leibniz was indeed able to advocate the three statements noted above in a consistent fashion because his philosophy contained a unity of philosophic thought, just as he was able to apply that thought to many different fields. The inner unity of Leibniz' thought has to be grasped to understand his work in its totality."
| |
|
Gods Before God, 1999.
A study of the development of monotheism in the Hebrew Bible.
1,944 words (approx. 7.8 pages), 8 sources, MLA, £ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Modern Judaism is usually considered a monotheistic religion - it has as its central tenet the belief in only one God, and the denial of the existence of all other gods. However, the Hebrew Bible is not a modern document, and it contains different conceptions of God and his relation to other gods. In places, the Hebrew Bible supports monotheism, but in other places it does not. This paper examines the various conceptions of God and other gods in the Hebrew Bible, how these conceptions changed over time, and the possible influences from sources outside the Israelite tradition, including Egyptian, Canaanite, and Iranian.
Outline:
Origins
Pre-Exile
Exile
Post-Exile
Conclusion
From the Paper
"In the early, pre-exilic period, the Israelites were still forming as a people, and were substantially influenced by Canaanite religion and culture. Yahweh was still a somewhat local deity, tied to the land and the temple. After the destruction of the temple and during the exile, the Israelite religion had to broaden to survive, and God became more transcendent, omnipresent, and monotheistic. The Israelites also had to differentiate themselves from the people they were living among, in order to keep their religion and culture whole. When the exile ended and the temple was rebuilt this movement continued: God became more universal and the Jewish people became more exclusive. The religion has become thoroughly monotheistic, although in late post-exilic times it starts to develop a sense of dualism that was absent earlier, and is a result of Iranian influences (Widengren, 311)."
| |
|
Liebniz, Spinoza and the Idea of God, 2008.
A comparison between the views of Benedict Spinoza and Gottfried Leibniz concerning the idea of God.
2,575 words (approx. 10.3 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares and contrasts the idea of God posited by Benedict Spinoza with that posited by Gottfried Leibniz. The paper points out that, according to Spinoza, God exists necessarily from its divine nature, inhabiting the world as the world inhabits it. It claims that Leibniz saw the elegance of this utterly rational God, though he also espied a threat that he attempted to displace by defending the traditional anthropomorphic idea of God. Spinoza's God is beyond human, to which the human notions of 'good' and 'evil' do not apply. Leibniz saw in this God no freedom, no agency, and no morality by which man could live. The paper concludes that these two philosophers, arguably the most significant of their day, differed drastically in their views of God's role with regard to the world. While Spinoza's view of a non-human God appeals to humanity to find a liberal and democratic method by which to exist in the world, Leibniz's more traditional view of God involves the reliance upon faith and provides a perfect example upon which humanity must model itself.
From the Paper
"While this eminently rational idea of God possesses an almost geometric elegance, the implications of such a view would greatly disturb Spinoza's contemporaries, Leibniz among them. Since all things follow necessarily from God's nature as substance, determined solely through itself, it follows that things could not be any other way than they are. "Things could not have been produced by God in any manner or in any order different from that which exists." This is an utter rejection of the supreme anthropomorphic father figure, who chooses between right and wrong and lays down laws by which humanity is judged. Good and bad are reduced to human notions relative to our limited experience of the world, completely irrelevant to a universe that functions from the necessary. Morality is seemingly abolished, and God seems too powerless to ever have created anything at all. In fact, freedom to Spinoza is the ability to be determined by nothing other than one's nature, which entails that only God is completely free as the one substance, and to choose to be anything but what he is would be absurd, as what he is, is perfection. "...God alone is a free cause. For God alone exists only from the necessity of his nature and acts from the necessity of his nature." The threat to the theocratic order is explicit here, for while Spinoza's God is necessarily perfect, he is not necessarily good. Following from necessity, what we term 'evil' is as much in God as what we call 'good'. This God is not based on relative human notions or longings: it follows purely from the necessity of reason. Spinoza maintains that he sees God as surely as he can see the truth of a geometric proof: "I know it in the same way that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles." The rejection of ultimate reward and punishment places the onus for morality squarely upon human shoulders; a yoke religion explicitly labors to remove because it is too heavy for most humans to bear and would lead to social chaos. Perhaps Spinoza had such in mind when he penned the last line of his Ethics: "...all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare."
| |
|
Leibniz and Spinoza, 2002.
Compares the views of seventeenth century philosophers, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza.
1,674 words (approx. 6.7 pages), 2 sources, MLA, £ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Gottfried Leibniz's philosophical system relied on the foundational principles of non-contradiction and sufficient reason. The paper shows that in his "Discourse on Metaphysics" (1686), Leibniz argued that the perfection of God was demonstrable through the principle of non-contradiction and that His perfection meant that God's creations must also be perfect. The paper compares this view with that of Baruch Spinoza in whose "Ethics" (1675), the pantheistic argument was that there was but one substance, and that substance was God, which left no room for contingency or free will. In Spinoza's view the impression of contingency was merely created by the inadequacy of the human mind to grasp the completeness of creation.
From the Paper
"Spinoza held, therefore, that because God was all-powerful and perfect nothing in his creation could take place without his willing it to be so, which deprived his created things of agency and left them only with its illusion. Leibniz, however, wished to demonstrate how, despite the perfection of God and his complete control over all of his creation, he allowed contingency and free will a role in the universe. Leibniz immediately established, via the principle of noncontradiction, that God was perfection. Anything that is not capable of perfection "in the highest degree" is not perfect (581)."
| |
|
God in Hinduism and Judaism, 2008.
An analysis of the significance of a god or gods in Hinduism and Judaism
1,353 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 5 sources, MLA, £ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the significance of gods in two different religions, specifically Hinduism and Judaism. In particular, the paper looks at how the Hindu gods and the Jewish God are extremely significant to members of those religions. The paper consists of sections on both the Hindu and Jewish significance of gods and points out common traits between the way the religions treat gods and the ways in which they differ in their practices. The paper uses MLA style footnotes but does not include a works cited page.
From the Paper
"Hindu religion emphasises a need for release from this world. One of these methods of release is the Bhakti Marga. The Bhakti Marga is a reaction of the common people to the other more intellectual paths to release. It focuses on devotion to the gods, and is a significant part of modern Hinduism. The Hindu gods are not all-powerful immortal beings, and originally the religion was philosophically based, with little emphasis placed on worship of these deities. Over time, worship of the Hindu gods became an avenue for the less intellectually inclined people of India to participate. In developing a justification of worship to the gods, Hinduism became a more practical religion, and this helped secure its own survival in a world where there were many religions to choose from."
| |
|
The Word of God, 2004.
This paper offers an exploration of the word God and Word of God as treated in the Bible.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 8 sources, MLA, £ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer studies the word God and the Word of God. The writer looks at these concepts as they are treated in the Old and New Testaments. In this paper, the writer shows the many differences between the two biblical books including mankind, the Law, sin and redemption.
From the Paper
"The word God and the word of God are often viewed as being radically different in the Old and New Testaments. According to one theologian, 'Understanding the difference between the Old and New Testaments is one of the most important foundations that must be laid to properly understand God's Word'. There are many differences between the Word of God in the Old Testament and the New Testament. For example, mankind had no direct link to God in the Old Testament ... "
| |
|
Kant's Argument Against God, 2002.
An overview of Immanuel Kant's theories of God and his reasoning that God does not exist.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 3 sources, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper will discuss the Immanuel Kant's theories of God and seek to understand how he succeeded in proving that God does not exist in his world. By evaluating his ideas on morals and other subjects related to his philosophy on God, we can see how he clearly saw the reasoning in finding that a God did not exist for him.
| |
|
Plato and Leibniz, 2005.
This paper compares the common good of Plato and the notion of God in the philosophical theory of Leibniz.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 2 sources, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses how the basis of the common good in Plato and of God in the philosophy of Leibniz reflect similar ideals about what is good in society for the human race. The deconstruction of Roman Catholic dictates of Original Sin reflect a blessing in the work of Leibniz as Plato dictates the natural order of things in man, explaining ignorance to be a perfection of existence on Earth. The paper discusses that however, mankind has the ability to use reason and rationale in having a choice in either evolving to a higher state or devolving into chaos.
From the Paper
"This philosophical study will examine the basis of the common good in "The Republic" by Plato in comparison to the notion of "god", as described by Leibniz in his "Discourse on Metaphysics." By understanding the soul in relation to the religious dictates of Christianity, one can compare Leibniz to Plato in understanding the good in relation to existence. By realizing the nature and imperfections of mankind, Leibniz exacts the same conclusions on the "common good" as Plato depicts in "The Republic." "The Republic" by Plato defines the necessary elements of the just soul in relation the society that is created through this philosophical treatise. The duality of the human nature is divided into the rational and the irrational, which both have a common place in the behaviors that mankind is free to enact."
| |
|
The Human Need to Believe in God, 2008.
A discussion of why human beings have always needed a god or gods to believe in.
1,908 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 5 sources, MLA, £ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the origins of religion and how they may have evolved from a basic human need to believe in something that was meta-physical, divine, and omnipotent. The paper also focuses on the indebtedness - if any - of some of today's prominent religions to other sects which have been lost to the mists of time. Furthermore, this paper explores what purposes myths served in the ancient world and how they benefited ancient societies in ways that other forms of socialization perhaps could not. In the final analysis, the paper suggests that religion may have evolved from more primitive forms of morals and maintains that religion is beneficial to the human species.
From the Paper
"Returning once more to the work of Paul Kurtz, the need for religion is something that all ancient human societies required insofar as it was an ideal (or at least tolerably effective) coping mechanism for dealing with all of the many things early man could not control. For instance, it assuaged the fear of death, gave human beings the comfort of believing that the injustices of this world would be rectified in the next one, was a means by which the tribulations brought about famine, pestilence, terrible weather or warfare could be endured in the hopes of better days to come, and - finally - religion was a palliative that restored hope in instance wherein hope might not be easily revived otherwise. Finally, religion gave early man the faith that the unseen factors shaping the world (for better or for ill) could be propitiated and even brought to serve the needs of the local community (Kurtz, 23)."
| |
|
The Question of God, 2001.
A look at the way in which two philosophers, G. W. Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza, address the question of God's existence.
1,500 words (approx. 6.0 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper endeavours to pit Leibniz and Spinoza against each other ? with the existence of God as the arena and words such as ?substance?, ?nature?, ?free will? and ?perfection? personifying weapons of choice. How these weapons are wielded proves the essence of this debate as well as validates Leibniz?s advantage over Spinoza.
From the Paper
"Before demonstrating the superiority of Leibniz?s arguments over Spinoza?s theories, it is necessary to provide a summary of each player?s platform. Leibniz believed that God and the universe were distinct from one another. With the influence of Pythagoras weighing heavily in his arguments, Leibniz deduced that ?Perhaps only one thing is conceived independently, namely God himself? and also nothing, or absence of being. This can be made clear by a superb analogy . . . [Leibniz then proceeds to elaborate on Pythagoras? theory that numbers were the quintessential truths, and that the universe in its entirety was in accord with itself, and insists:] I shall not here go into the immense usefulness of this system; it would be enough to note how wonderfully all numbers are thus expressed by means of Unity and Nothing. But although there is no hope in this life of people being able to arrive at the secret ordering of things which would make it evident how everything arises from pure being and nothingness, yet it is enough for the analysis of ideas to be continued as far as is necessary for the demonstration of truths.? "
| |
|
Greek, Norse and Egyptian Gods, 2002.
This paper discusses the similarities and differences between the Greek, Norse and Egyptian Pantheons --- gods and goddesses.
1,160 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the ?father-creator? God, a ?trickster? God, and a ?love? Goddess of Greek, Norse and Egyptian cultures. The author believes that the ?father-creator? Gods have the most in common: Greek God, Zeus, the Norse God Odin and the Egyptian God Amen-Re. The paper introduces the ?trickster Gods?: Norse God Loki, the Egyptian God Seth, and the Greek God Prometheus. The paper also describes the ?love goddesses?: Egyptian Goddess Hathor, Greek Goddess Aphrodite and Norse Goddess Freya.
From the Paper
"The myths of these gods also referred to the sky. Both Zeus and Odin had palaces high above the mortal world, known as Mt. Olympus and Asgard. These palaces served as meeting places for the gods, and as observation decks. Zeus is often depicted as looking down from Mt. Olympus into the mortal world. Odin also gazed at mortals and gods similarly, from Hlidskialf, his throne in Asgard. Though he did not have a palace in the sky, Amen-Re was referred to as the ?Sun? god. "
| |
|
Gods of Norse Mythology, 2007.
A description of three of the most important gods in Norse mythology.
913 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 22.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the gods Odin, Thor and Loki, and the parts that they played in Norse mythology. The writer explains how Odin, the most important figure and the creator in the Norse pantheon, became known as the Almighty or All-Father, and the wisest of all the gods. Thor, the god of thunder, and his magic hammer and goats, are also described. The writer explains how Loki, originally from a different race, acquired godhood by becoming Odin's blood brother, and eventually caused the downfall of the Aesir gods through his malicious acts. Ragnarokk, the day of reckoning for the gods, is also described.
Outline:
Introduction
Aesir Gods
Thor - The God of Thunder
Loki - The God of the Jotun Race
Ragnarokk - Destiny of the Gods
Conclusion
From the Paper
"In Asgard the land of the gods Thor was good natured, kind and had a beautiful wife named Sif who ripened seeds after Thor's thunder showers. They also had two sons Magni and Modi who were almost as strong as their father. Thor was the strongest of all the gods and also the protector of the gods and also the people on Midgard, he ruled over all the wars on Midgard and chose who would be the winner in each war. He protected the gods and humans by smashing jotuns and trolls with his magic hammer. He also had an iron mitt to protect his hand and a magic belt that made him twice as strong."
| |
|
Of God and Temptation, 2003.
An essay on God and his relation to the concept of temptation. This paper debates whether or not God initiated temptation and, consequently, sin, alluding to the possibility of a malevolent god.
1,313 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 3 sources, MLA, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay is actually written in a fairly satirical tone, pointing out contradictions in the "infallible" Bible, as well as contradictions in God's allegedly perfect character using Christian rhetoric and quotations from the Bible itself.
From the Paper
"Although Genesis 3:4-5 (?The serpent said to the woman, ?Surely you will not die, for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like divine beings who know good and evil.?) tells us that the serpent tempted Eve to eat the apple, isn?t it true that God tempted Adam and Eve first? If there were no Tree of Knowledge for Adam and Eve to be tempted with, then there would be no concept of temptation, no sin, and no damnation. There would also be no malice, no murder, no hatred, no theft, no bigotry, no rape, no war, no crime and nothing else that could even be perceived as a negative action, because if there was no sin, then none of the aforementioned would even exist."
|
|
|
