Humanities

**humanities**
topics:

=1: proving the existence of god= = = =2: farming= = = =3: the green revolution= = = = =

[[image:http://www.dumb.com/god/images/god.jpg]]
Can we prove the existence of god? Summa theological Can we prove the existence of god? This argument has been puzzling people for along time. Lot of people link it to life after death therefore they want to prove the existence of god. People have tried to prove he’s real for thousands of years and people are still arguing this. I personally think that we will never be able to prove the existence of god. Many people have tried to prove the existence of god through their arguments but there are also a lot of people who have very strong arguments to prove that god isn’t real. I am going to tell you about some people who have tried to prove the existence of god and some who have tried to prove that he is just a myth. The first argument to prove the existence of god is the ontological argument he was a English medieval Christian and he said that there are 2 types of conclusions which are "a priori" and “a posteriori". a priori is a conclusion that you come up with that you have had no experience of for example a conclusion you get about something where you have only been in a room all your life. but a posterior conclusion is when you have experienced what you conclude like you have seen a sun rise and set you have seen it therefore you have a conclusion which is true  . his argument was that god is that is which that nothing greater can be conceived therefore if he imagined god in his mind and that god is the greatest thing that can ever be conceived and that he doesn’t need any more qualities then he must be real. a attempt to prove god is not real is Ludwig Feuerbach, he was the first anthropologist  and he argued that religion is actually the study of man. He believes that Christians thought that god is all loving and god is all knowing and also that god is all powerful. According to Feuerbach these attitudes were projected to an image of god where “reason/knowledge” would become omniscience “will/power” becomes omnipotence and “love” becomes Omni benevolence. Ludwig believed that life was leading to a point in time when humankind will become all loving and all powerful and all-knowing and therefore god will be left behind and that god should be forgotten and put back in the cradle with the tooth fairy and Santa. He believes than manmade god and he thought that if human kind realized that there was no god the world would be better off. a second argument to prove that god is not real is ‘Evil’ there are 2 types of evil: natural evil and moral evil. Moral evil is action committed by humans and that has caused suffering and natural evil has also caused suffering but it has nothing to do with humans like natural disasters: volcanoes, hurricanes and tsunamis. The argument of this was that if god is all loving and powerful and also god is all knowing then then why is there sufferings, if god is all knowing why doesn’t he stop it and if god is all powerful then why doesn’t he intervene. This argument then goes on to say that god can only be two of the loving powerful and knowing because if he is all he would stop all evil and suffering and the world would be a nicer place. The argument is that god can only be 2 for example if god is all knowing and all powerful then he is not all loving therefore he would not do anything also if god was all loving and all powered full bet he doesn’t know about it then he can’t do anything. And if he was all three then he would do something therefore he is not real. The argument that Christian against this would be that God lets suffering and evil because when god created the world he gave us the choice to obey him or disobey him therefore we were given free will to do as we like that’s why god doesn’t intervene because we were given free will do what we wish. A strong argument against this also would be the book of job  which tells the story of an extremely righteous man named Job who then gets all his life stock killed his house collapse and his children and family die but instead of giving up on god job says to god "Naked I came out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return: Lord has given, and Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of lord." God basically reply’s with that there is so many things that job does not know about in this world and that job did not know how to create a world so complicated and complex therefore a normal human could of never done what he has. this is also backed up by a quote from genesis 1:1 this says "everything god made was good"  this shows that god made everyone good and that due to our free will we have made it bad. another argument that proves Sigmund Freud he had <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">a theory called the Oedipus complex this was that in a horde of people the younger males were born wanting to kill their fathers and marry their mothers this caused guilt and when the fathers died even if they didn’t kill them they would feel so bad that they would end up worshipping god <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">an argument for proving the existence of god is religious out of body experiences which are when your heart stops working and you are dead <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> for a small amount of time and the argument is that allot  <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> of these accounts are that they  <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> see themselves lying in the hospital bed and then going into a dark tunnel and seeing the end and some people say when they come to the end they see family members or friends in some cases people claim that they have been out of their body for over a week and then get back their original state and even know they have been dead for around 3 min  <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">they have experienced around a week out of their body and this shows that god is real because these experiences wouldn’t happen if god wasn’t real. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">a real account of this is :"The following happened to me when I was about twenty-five, that is thirty years ago, and I remember it as if it were yesterday. I had gone to bed with my then wife and I was lying on my back dropping off to sleep. Suddenly, I became fully awake because my body was vibrating at a terrific rate and I could hear a humming sound getting louder and louder. The next thing I knew, I was looking down at my wife and "myself" from the ceiling. I then came down from the ceiling, walked around the bed and looked at my wife, putting my face very close to hers. She was sleeping soundly. I knew I had not fallen asleep because during the whole experience I was ultra aware. Next, I decided to go visit an aunt of mine who lived not far away. I walked along the passageway to the front door of the flat in which we were living. this is a vary good example of a out of body experence proving that there must be a god. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">my personal opinion is that we will not be able to prove the existance of god however hard we try there have been many people who have been very persuasive and have had strong arguments but i think that we will never be able to prove hes real or not and because god is so powerful and the nest person in religion that he will never be proven i actually bope that he will never be proven because if he gets proven the world will go mad and everyone will start to praise him. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">jack dyble

Good start but you need to add a reframe of the question. This is a little muddled. Good understanding. You need to add Gaunilos criticism and also focus in more detail on what Anselm was saying. Has this essay been proof read? Good job Jack, well explained. Capitals at the start of the sentence. As argued by the German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Ok, a good point but needing a little more clarity when explained. The book of Job supports Christian arguments.l Use capitals because you are referring to a title. Biblical reference please. An incorrect reference. Check grammar. This is only part of the Oedipus complex. Clinically dead. A lot Who? remember when writing an essay you must explain everything as clearly and you can. Distortions in their perception of time. It doesn’t prove the existence of god but may provide an argument for life after death. Or perhaps Lucid Dreaming. Can you explain this further.

reflection:::: I personally think that I tried hard to get as much information in it as I could, the section I think I did best was the information I went into with the book of job and the argument for LudwigFeuerbach. I think that I need to work on my punctuation and spelling also I think that I really need to work on my flowing of the essay and the paragraphs need to flow together.

=2: **farming**=





=**3: the green revolution**= > ==== ==== > ====<span style="background-color: #46ff00; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Green Revolution refers to a series of research, development, and technology transfer initiatives, occurring between the 1940s and the late 1970s, that increased agriculture production around the world, beginning most markedly in the late 1960s. ==== > ====<span style="background-color: #46ff00; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The initiatives, led by Norman Borlaug, the "Father of the Green Revolution" credited with saving over a billion people from starvation, involved the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques, distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers. ==== > ====<span style="background-color: #46ff00; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The term "Green Revolution" was first used in 1968 by former United States Agency for International Development (USAID) director William Gaud, who noted the spread of the new technologies and said, ==== > ====<span style="background-color: #46ff00; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">"These and other developments in the field of agriculture contain the makings of a new revolution. It is not a violent Red Revolution like that of the Soviets, nor is it a White Revolution like that of the Shah of Iran. I call it the Green Revolution. ==== > > where has the green revoulution made an impact? <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">There have been numerous attempts to introduce the successful concepts from the Mexican and Indian projects into Africa. These programs have generally been less successful. Reasons cited include widespread corruption, insecurity, a lack of infrastructure, and a general lack of will on the part of the governments. Yet environmental factors, such as the availability of water for irrigation, the high diversity in slope and soil types in one given area are also reasons why the Green Revolution is not so successful in Africa. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">A recent program in western Africa is attempting to introduce a new high-yield variety of rice known as " <span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">[|New Rice for Africa] <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">" (NERICA). NERICAs yield about 30% more rice under normal conditions, and can double yields with small amounts of fertilizer and very basic irrigation. However the program has been beset by problems getting the rice into the hands of farmers, and to date the only success has been in <span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">[|Guinea] <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> where it currently accounts for 16% of rice cultivation. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">After a famine in 2001 and years of chronic hunger and poverty, in 2005 the small African country of <span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">[|Malawi] <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> launched the Agricultural Input Subsidy Program by which vouchers are given to smallholder farmers to buy subsidized nitrogen fertilizer and maize seeds. Within its first year, the program was reported with extreme success, producing the largest maize harvest of the country's history; enough to feed the country with tons of maize left over. The program has advanced yearly ever since. Various sources claim that the program has been an unusual success, hailing it as a "miracle".
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Problems in Africa **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">IR8 and the Philippines <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">In 1960, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines with Ford and Rockefeller Foundations established IRRI (International Rice Research Institute). A rice crossing between Dee-Geo-woo-gen and Peta was done at IRRI in 1962. In 1966, one of the breeding lines became a new cultivar, IR8. IR8 required the use of fertilizers and pesticides, but produced substantially higher yields than the traditional cultivars. Annual rice production in the Philippines increased from 3.7 to 7.7 million tons in two decades. The switch to IR8 rice made the Philippines a rice exporter for the first time in the 20th century. But the heavy pesticide use reduced the number of fish and frog species found in rice paddies. > > ===== =====