Introduction The argument on whether God exists or not has probably been debated over many centuries. The major arguments for God’s existence are presented in the cosmological argument and the teleological argument. In “On Being an Atheist,” however, H. J. McCloskey sets out to reiterate his position as an atheist, and offer counter-arguments to popular theistic positions (McCloskey, 1968). McCloskey maintains that the arguments for God’s existence are fundamentally false. He adds that without absolute proofs, people ought to dismiss the idea that there is an omniscient and omnipotent being. He argues that the major pointer to God’s non-existence is the presence of evil in the world. In this paper, the author will attempt to counter the arguments …show more content…
Evans and Manis present a non-temporal form of the argument in three parts. They argue that there are some contingent beings in existence. Since there are some contingent beings, there must be a necessary being, which causes the existence of contingent beings. Although atheists may point out that the universe has always been in existence, Evans and Manis respond that they make no claims regarding the age of the universe (Evans & Manis, 2009). Atheists might also point out that if everything requires a cause, then God must also require a cause. However, God is not a contingent being, so that it is unnecessary to explain His origin. In addition, if we could explain or trace God’s origin, he would cease to be God (Evans & Manis, 2009). Evans and Manis apply the principle of sufficient reason in defense of the cosmological theory. There has to be a final reason for the existence of a contingent being, including the associated series. While naturalism holds that there is no cause for an object’s existence, and that the object will come and go based on natural laws, the naturalists are unable to give reasons for the existence of finite beings. Consequently, God is the cause of the universe. In addition, God is infinite and has no cause (Evans & Manis, …show more content…
He adds that it would be more practical for men to seek comfort and strength from friends and ‘men of good will,’ who are able to give it, as opposed to from religious belief (McCloskey, 1968). However, concepts such as morality exist because of God, and not in spite of Him (Craig, 2008). Without God, murder would be no different from childbirth, just as a human being’s life would not be distinct from that of a dog. Murder and childbirth, held on the same plane, would be a hardly comforting scenario. Although different cultures have widely varied perspectives regarding morality, not all persons or communities have accepted God’s revelation. In addition, God’s definition of morality would not change based on other people’s reluctance to accept
H.J McCloskey’s article, “On Being an Atheist,” is an attempt to show atheism as a more practical alternative to the Christian belief. McCloskey reasons against the theistic beliefs of the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and design. He references the presence of evil in a world created by God and the absurdity of living by faith. This article is an attempt to reason that God does not exist because He is perfect and the world is not perfect; evil exists therefore God cannot exist. McCloskey’s article labels these arguments as “proofs” and concludes none of these arguments would be evidence of God’s existence. I find McCloskey’s article to lack logic and coherence which only serves to invalidate his arguments. I find this little more than an attempt to justify his own atheistic worldview.
Thomas Aquinas, a leading scholar of the Middle Ages, argued that “Everything in the universe has a cause. Trace those causes back and there must have been a First Cause that triggered everything else. God is that First Cause.” This was known as his “First Cause” argument.
The question of God’s existence has been debated through the history of man, with every philosopher from Socrates to Immanuel Kant weighing in on the debate. So great has this topic become that numerous proofs have been invented and utilized to prove or disprove God’s existence. Yet no answer still has been reached, leaving me to wonder if any answer at all is possible. So I will try in this paper to see if it is possible to philosophically prove God’s existence.
The problem of evil is a deductive a priori argument who’s goal is to prove the non-existence of God. In addition to Mackie’s three main premises he also introduces some “quasi-logical” rules that give further evidence to his argument. First he presumes that a good thing will eliminate evil to the extent that it can and second, that omnipotence has no limits. From these two “additional premises,” it can be concluded that a completely good and omnipotent being will eliminate all possible evil. After establishing these added premises Mackie continues with his piece to list and negate several theistic responses to the argument.
Parmenides of Elea once presented the expression ex nihilo nihil fit, which translates to nothing comes from nothing for one of his many theses. The Cosmological Argument, an argument of the posteriori category, meaning that it requires data based on past experiences, argues for the existence of God with this type of expression at its core. By attempting to prove how the universe must be influenced by an independent being that has godlike qualities, cosmological arguments suggest that it is rational to believe in an omnipotent being and its accountability of creating the universe.
Throughout history there has always been discussions and theories as to how the universe came to be. Where did it come from? How did it happen? Was it through God that the universe was made? These philosophies have been discussed and rejected and new theories have been created. I will discuss three theories from our studies, Kalam’s Cosmological Argument, Aquinas’s Design Argument, and Paley’s Design Argument. In this article, I will discuss the arguments and what these arguments state as their belief. A common belief from these three theories is that the universe is not infinite, meaning that the universe was created and has a beginning date. Each believe that there was a God, deity, or master creator that created the universe for a reason. They also believe that
In his article, "On Being an Atheist" Mccloskey gives a few contentions that look to support the non-presence of God, Atheism. This he does utilizing a few cases made by theists on a general level and in addition centering all the more on the Christian God. The cases are isolated into a few segments whereupon he lays his countering contentions. At the presentation, he gives a concise review of the contentions exhibited by theists, who he alludes to as "confirmations," guaranteeing that none of the evidences make enough avocation to accept that God does exist. Despite the fact that one of the verifications may not indicate the presence of God, all the evidences together give a solid confirmation to the presence of God acknowledging their accord or absence of disagreement. In any case, if the presence of God is focused around such demonstrates, his verifications or complaints that God does not exist are questionable, too.
If God did not exist, he would not be the greatest being imaginable. He is the greatest thing imaginable. Therefore, he does exist. From this argument, God’s existence is viewed. as necessary (Ayer. A. J. 1973).
The cosmological argument is the existence of God, arguing that the possibility of each existing and the domain collected of such elements in this universe. The inquiry is that 'for what reason does anything exist? Why as opposed to nothing? In this paper, I will explain for what reason does everything need cause? Why is God thought to be the principal cause?
... it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? Moreover, the cause must transcend both matter and time to create matter and time. Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists.
This theory is Aristotle’s belief that something can not come out of nothing. Aristotle says, “How will there be movement, if there is no actually existing cause?…The seeds must act on the earth and the semen on the menstrual blood”. What he is saying is that something must be set into motion by something else. There is always a cause to an effect. One relies on the other. Therefore, before origin there must have been an “immovable mover”, that being God.
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...
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.
In this paper I will be exploring two arguments on the topic of the existence of God. In particular, I will focus on Saint Thomas Aquinas’s efficient causation argument for God’s existence and an objection to it from Bertrand Russell. After an analysis of Aquinas’s argument and a presentation of Russell’s objection, I will show how Russell’s objection fails.
Many of us have wondered about the role of a Deity, in defining our moral code, and this has been a subject of discourse among scholars and philosophers since centuries. Many define morality as the innate ability of the human conscience to draw input for decisions which they believe is present there by itself. While some say that the (belief on the) presence of God gives them strength and inspiration to overcome their inability to follow moral standards (which are already defined) especially when they conflict with their self-interests. Although, some people argue that social stimulus imposes limits to one’s actions even if God does not exist. However, a person is at absolute liberty to perform, whatsoever one wants to in the non-existence of God because one does not regard anything as right or wrong in absence of objective moral principles and does not fear any Divine judgement.