Describe the empirical and rationalistic arguments for the existence Essay

Describe the empirical and rationalistic arguments for the existence of God - Essay Example Using this framework, rationalists argue that although no one can claims to have ‘seen’ God, there is enough circumstantial evidence to prove his/her existence. For example, the beauty and splendor of the natural world with its own myriad of complexity and design suggests the existence of a benevolent creator. This is the argument some creationists employ to counter evolutionary biologists’ theories of random genetic mutations. The regularity of natural phenomena such as the rising of the Sun, the waxing and waning of the moon, the presence of other life-forms on earth, are all examples of the work of the omnipresent (yet unobservable) creator or God. Rationalists further argue that the tendency for higher animals to exhibit altruistic behaviour and unconditional love can be taken as more proof. At a broader level, the evil forces in the world need a countervailing positive force in the form of God. Empiricists, on the other hand, present complementary lines of th ought. According to Empiricists, some of the transcendental experiences that occur to humans, whereby the realm of consciousness if elevated to another higher level is proof enough of God’s existence. Indeed, most such transcendental experiences coincide with a religious event such as prayer or divine music, making the associations between the two quite strong. These divine experiences of God’s presence are not usually grasped through sense organs in the course of daily life, but require special dedication to the faith and divinity for the revelation to occur.

With rreference to recent case law discuss the impact of the human Essay

With rreference to recent case law discuss the impact of the human rights act 1998 on the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy - Essay Example The UK Constitution is rightly deemed an unconventional, uncodified constitution that is a pragmatic product of experience and experiment. Central to the UK Constitution is the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy which endows the UK Parliament an overweening supremacy above all other governmental institutions including the executive and the judiciary. As defined by Albert Dicey, it is a doctrine wherein the Parliament has â€Å"the right to make or unmake any law whatever and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.†3 Parliament is not bound by its predecessor. In other words, it confers upon the Parliament the title â€Å"Supreme Lawmaker† by which the notion of judicial review does not apply. Thus, no court is allowed to question the validity of an Act of Parliament. Moreover, the Parliament’s legislative competence is rendered unlimited and by ordinary Act of Parliament it is empowered to alter any aspect of the existing Constitution. This doctrine had been questioned but was upheld in the Madzimbamuto case with finality, holding that if Parliament chose to enact a law that is improper or immoral, â€Å"the court will not hold the Act of Parliament invalid†.4 This doctrine had also been lambasted by such judges as Lord Chief Justice Woolf on the ground that it causes the British courts to become a weakened judiciary, stripped of the power of judicial review and the power to interpret civil rights implications while the Parliament is free to enact any legislation that it desires.5 It is a reality though, that the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy was threatened and suffered an erosion when UK decided to become a member of the European Union in 1972 and had to accede to European laws and the principle of the supremacy of European union law. The case Costa v ENEL