CRITIQUE OF RACHEL'S' PROOF FOR REVELATION AND WORSHIP'S BEING IN DISAGREEMENT WITH ETHICAL ACTION

Q: How can I download an article?

To download an article from SID, first log in to the site, search for the article title, and click on the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I download an ISI article?

To download an ISI article on SID, enter the keyword or article title in the search bar, view the relevant results, click on the desired article, and select the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I access the SID database?

To access the SID database, visit SID.ir, create an account, and log in to access scientific resources.

Q: Is downloading articles from SID free?

Some articles on SID are available for free, while others require payment. Details are specified on the article's page.

JAVADI MOHSEN; MOUSAVI FATEMEH

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Journal Paper

Paper Information

Journal: ANDISHE-E-NOVIN-E-DINI Year:2008 | Volume:4 | Issue:13 Page(s): 109-131

Download Full-Text

Persian Verion

View:

843

Download:

Cites:

Information Journal Paper

Title

CRITIQUE OF RACHEL'S' PROOF FOR REVELATION AND WORSHIP'S BEING IN DISAGREEMENT WITH ETHICAL ACTION

Author(s)

JAVADI MOHSEN | MOUSAVI FATEMEH | Issue Writer Certificate

Keywords

GOD'S EXISTENCEQ2

REVELATIONQ2

ETHICAL PROOFQ2

WORSHIPQ3

ETHICAL AGENTQ2

KANTQ3

CHARLESQ3

QUINEQ3

Abstract

The paper is regarded as a critique of James Rachels' proof against the Existence of God, the proof well known as ethical. In the proof morality is based upon the independence of ETHICAL AGENT or upon the same norm considered by KANT for an action to be moral. CHARLES has claimed that morality so considered stands against the existence of God. Since God has been considered to be WORSHIPed and divinely submitted. CHARLES has really claimed that REVELATION and Divine law as known to be the guidance of ethical living, not only lacks the role but also opposes the ethical action. Granted inevitability of ethical action, therefore, REVELATION and thereof, the existence of God cannot be reasonable. In this way, relying on the evidence of ETHICAL AGENT, one is logically obliged to negate the existence of God, the adorable and the sender of REVELATION.It should be stated CHARLES put some objections against the proof but he answer them. This paper, surveying the objections, has paid attention to QUINE's view opposing CHARLES'.

Cites

No record.

References

No record.

Cite

APA: Copy

JAVADI, MOHSEN, & MOUSAVI, FATEMEH. (2008). CRITIQUE OF RACHEL'S' PROOF FOR REVELATION AND WORSHIP'S BEING IN DISAGREEMENT WITH ETHICAL ACTION. ANDISHE-E-NOVIN-E-DINI, 4(13), 109-131. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/133385/en

Vancouver: Copy

JAVADI MOHSEN, MOUSAVI FATEMEH. CRITIQUE OF RACHEL'S' PROOF FOR REVELATION AND WORSHIP'S BEING IN DISAGREEMENT WITH ETHICAL ACTION. ANDISHE-E-NOVIN-E-DINI[Internet]. 2008;4(13):109-131. Available from: https://sid.ir/paper/133385/en

IEEE: Copy

MOHSEN JAVADI, and FATEMEH MOUSAVI, “CRITIQUE OF RACHEL'S' PROOF FOR REVELATION AND WORSHIP'S BEING IN DISAGREEMENT WITH ETHICAL ACTION,” ANDISHE-E-NOVIN-E-DINI, vol. 4, no. 13, pp. 109–131, 2008, [Online]. Available: https://sid.ir/paper/133385/en

Related Journal Papers