In H. J. McCloskey’s On Being an Atheist article, he argues against two philological design arguments: the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument. He also discusses his views on theists’ faith, the existence of evil, and free will. McCloskey states in his article that theists’ views on atheists are wrong. This statement I found out was true after reading his entire article. My previous view was that atheists did not care about following rules or being moral. I also believed that they are bad people. I understand now that an atheist can be a good person who wants the world to be good. Additionally, I see what their true thoughts on the existence of evil and God is. In this paper, I will respond to his arguments against the two philological design arguments and the statements he makes about faith, the existence of evil, and free will.
McCloskey states in the second paragraph of his article that “proofs”
His main point is that if God did create the universe, he must have been malevolent, because of the evil in the world (McCloskey 1968). This is a statement that is made by McCloskey multiple times in his article. This makes me believe that the biggest issue he has with theism is the belief that God exist as well as evil and God allows that evil.
McCloskey states that for there to be proof of God, there must be indisputable examples of design and purpose. He goes one to mention that there are not any of these examples (McCloskey 1968). He is right in saying that there are no physical, concrete examples of God. However, the viewpoint of Evans and Manis support that there is a need for a necessary being. This is the only kind of argument supporting the existence of God. So, even though McCloskey is correct in saying theists lack indisputable examples of design and purpose, many philosophers support the idea of there being a necessary
It is evident that McCloskey’s arguments in an attempt to disprove the existence of God lacks evidence. He disputes the existence of God based on a lack of undisputable evidence, but he provides no undisputable evidence to counter this existence. He dismisses the idea of a creator by theory of evolution. Although he may have a valid argument for evolution he still does not account for the start of the world. Everything must come from something. The cause cannot be unlimited, there was a cause that had to be free of all other causes, and this points us to creation.
Roger White presents an interesting argument for why God must exist. In his argument, White states that everything in the world is finely tuned to live its life accordingly. In order for this to be possible, God must have finely tuned all beings so that they were well fit for life. In depth, this argument is, “If a fact stands in need of an explanation, and a hypothesis explains this fact better than anything else, then they support each other. Our universe being so perfect for life is a fact in need of explanation. The hypothesis that God has finely tuned everything to be where all living beings can exist in this universe is an explanation to this fact. No other hypothesis compares to such a standard as this one. Therefore, the fact that our
The problem of evil is a difficult objection to contend with for theists. Indeed, major crises of faith can occur after observing or experiencing the wide variety and depths of suffering in the world. It also stands that these “evils” of suffering call into question the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The “greater good defense” tries to account for some of the issues presented, but still has flaws of its own.
In this paper, I will use the writings of John Hick and Richard Swinburne to dispute the problem of evil argument. After I first elaborate on the P.O.E., I will give support for God’s existence with regards to the problem of evil. Then, I will address further counterarguments
Religion, by far, is one of the most dominant forces the human race has ever seen. It has influenced and continues to influence billions of people all over the world. It has driven some of the most beneficial cooperative humanitarian efforts and some of the most heinous acts of violence anybody can perpetuate on another human being. In his book, When Religion Becomes Evil, Dr. Charles Kimball explores the causes and slippery slopes that lead to these kinds of atrocious behaviors. Many of his points were incredibly well thought out and valid, but one repetitive phrase that Dr. Kimball used caught my attention: “authentic religion.” This one phrase contains so many troublesome presuppositions that it is impossible not to question.
Concerning the first concept which is Creation, Holmes explains that the Christian church has been confronted by various kinds of Gnosticisms which claimed that we are creatures from two worlds. He talks about “mind vs. matter” where mind is the source of what is rational and good while matter is the source of life’s evil and both of them are a conflict that hasn’t been resolved yet. He also talks about “sacred vs. secular”. With this he refers to natural vs. spiritual, church vs. the world, where the results are just tension between faith and culture and anti-in...
Penn Jillette is a very well-known atheist and a research fellow at Cato Institute and has lectured at Oxford and MIT. He also authored an article entitled, “There is no God.” In this article, Jillette declares himself to be “beyond atheism.” He argues that everyone needs to take a step back and start with no belief in God. Then, we can all start to look for evidence of God. Even Jillette believes that whatever conclusion we end up with, it has to be “some leap of faith that helps one see life’s big picture, some rules to live by.” Jillette's conclusion is simply “This I believe: I believe there is no God.” The rest of the article he goes on to explain that this decision has informed every moment of his life. He concludes his article by stating that believing there is no God gives him more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, and beauty.
The Proof of the Existence of God There are many arguments that try to prove the existence of God. In this essay I will look at the ontological argument, the cosmological. argument, empirical arguments such as the avoidance of error and the argument from the design of the. There are many criticisms of each of these that would say the existence of God can’t be proven that are perhaps.
Morality and ethics have always been a large source of debate and contention between different factions of various interests, beliefs, and ideals due to its centrality and foundational role in society and civilization and incredible importance to everyday life and decision making. In many of these disputes religious belief, or a lack thereof, serves as an important driving force behind one or both sides of the argument. In the modern world, one of the bigger instances of this can be seen in the many debates between Atheistic and religious individuals about the implications of religious belief on morality. One of the most famous Atheists, Christopher Hitchens, asserts that religion is not only unnecessary for morality, but actually impedes it. In his work God is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything, Christopher Hitchens challenges religious believers to “name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer”, and proudly states afterwards that many have made the attempt but no one has given him a satisfactory answer. However, the best response to this challenge is to point out the inherent flaws in his logic, the unfairness of his challenge, and the fact that Hitchens is asking the wrong question in the first place.
I believe that Greach is right in the important points he has made in this article. I cannot think of any argument to his logic if I am coming from a Christian point of view, believing that there is a God, and that he is the almighty being that the Church tells us he is, the Bible supports, and the religion reinforces. He makes his points very clearly logical what can and cannot work according to what we deem as true and false statements, what contradicts one another, and what truths we think we know and are quite possibly false. I like what he said and can find no provable, logical argument using our beliefs of and in God therefore I believe that he is correct. Sometimes, that's all you need to be right.
A wonderful description of the nature of God’s existence that includes the absolute possession of characteristics that have to be uniquely God was said, “First, God must exist necessarily, which means that God’s existence differs from ours by not being dependent on anything or anyone else, or such as to be taken from him or lost in any way. God has always existed, will always exist and could not do otherwise than to exist. Also, whatever attributes God possesses, he possesses necessarily” (Wood, J., 2010, p. 191).
Dr. William Lane Craig supports the idea of existence of God. He gives six major arguments, in order to defend his position. The first argument is quite fare, Craig says that God is the best reason of existence of everything. He gives the idea, that the debates between all the people, cannot reach the compromise, because the best explanation of the reasons of existence of everything is God, and nothing can be explained without taking Him into consideration. The second argument of Craig is from a cosmological point of view: he says that the existence of the universe is the best proof of the existence of God. Because, the process of the creation of the universe is so ideally harmonious, that it seems impossible to appear accidentally. The third argument is about the fine tuning of the universe. The universe is designed in such a way that people always have aim of life, and the life of people and the nature are interconnected. The fourth argument of Dr. Craig is about the morality: God is the best explanation of the existence of the morality and moral values in people’s lives. The...
The problem of reconciling an omnipotent, perfectly just, perfectly benevolent god with a world full of evil and suffering has plagued believers since the beginning of religious thought. Atheists often site this paradox in order to demonstrate that such a god cannot exist and, therefore, that theism is an invalid position. Theodicy is a branch of philosophy that seeks to defend religion by reconciling the supposed existence of an omnipotent, perfectly just God with the presence of evil and suffering in the world. In fact, the word “theodicy” consists of the Greek words “theos,” or God, and “dike,” or justice (Knox 1981, 1). Thus, theodicy seeks to find a sense of divine justice in a world filled with suffering.
This paper's purpose is to prove the existence of God. There are ten main reasons that are presented in this paper that show the actuality of God. It also shows counter-arguments to the competing positions (the presence of evil). It also gives anticipatory responses to possible objections to the thesis.
...roofs of God’s existence are basically the same in that they are all, essentially, examples of cause and effect. This cause and effect does not neccesarily prove there is a God but it does lead one to wonder what may be the highest cause, and for this there is no proof.