h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

i do philosophy at A level, and some of the crap some of those 'sit around and think' people came up with was just profound. For example, it was argued that the Earth must be designed (teleological argument) because it can't have come from nowhere, the how did 'God' appear from nowhere, this claim just leads to an infinite regress. Then some other person decided to defend this by claiming a 'first cause', which must be 'God' and therefore proves his existence. The moral argument says that people have morals and therefore there must be an authoritative law maker, who must be God. everyone has different morals, and so wouldn't this suggest a multiplicity of Gods???
All the religions are conflicting in their ideologies of a 'God' and these contradictory 'truth' claims, cannot all possibly be true, and so doesn't this make religion seem un-necessary??????

"All the other philosophers are talking ****" Spoken like a true philosopher. And its mostly true, too. This is the way of it. The ontological argument proves the existence of an entity called "everything that exists." i.e. the universe. The cosmological argument proves the existence of matter/energy - the source of all change (indeed change itself), yet itself unchanged (conserved). The moral argument proves that intelligent-ish social beings exist, for the authority of the Lawgiver is granted by the moral community. But we knew all those things anyway, didn't we? We could never doubt any of them, right? But WHY can't we doubt them? Now THERE'S a philosophical question for you! The Sage

I do phil. at a-level too! (well its really religious studies but that sounds pants )
The moral argument only works if there is one universal eternal moral doohickey.
I don't think it makes religion unnecessary: just... different! My personal theory [drumroll] is that there is the Truth, and there is the truth, and that all religions and atheists share a part of this Truth: it's like a jigsaw making this merry liddle picture of God, and each religion is only allowed so many pieces each, and even then, many religions actually share pieces: i.e. most of what religions say is actually the same... but different
GB

This suggests that THE TRUTH, as opposed to the truth, is something we can't attain, or wouldn't recognise. If that's the case it's only function is to keep us looking. Which is function enough I suppose.
Sage

We might be able to obtain it: enlightenment!

But how would we RECOGNIZE it? The world is full of people who THINK they've found IT - and they've all got a different one. What's the TEST?
Sage

If I told you that, it'd take the challenge out of it!

But if you don't understand the question how can you expect to understand the answer?

You know something...I don't quite know....but to be successful in Philosophy you're not supposed to get any answers, it just opens up yet more questions!

Philosophy is indeed about questions. If you're interested in the general nature of philosophy read Otto's guide entry on how to be a philosopher. (search guide under philosophy).
Sage

Youll have to give me another clue! Searched under philosophy: found loads but none by otto, searched under otto: found loads but none wrote anything on philosophy

It's a philosophical conundrum!

Sorry! Search philosophy. There should be a guide entry entitled "How to be a Philosopher" near the top of the list of entries. That's the one you're looking for.

Thank'e: I went right by that one! Will have a look....