Cleanthes’ argument is an a posteriori argument (or empirical argument), which is an argument that solely relies on past experience and reason rather than faith or nature. Cleanthes tried to prove God’s nature through “past experience,” but because God is a deity and is not able to be seen, it is impossible to base his nature on past experience. His argument is certainly not believable, but Philo and Demea’s criticisms make sense and prove that the argument is weak. Since religion is so complex, there are bound to be things that are not going to be answered, including God’s nature. Hume’s Dialogues makes this evident and provides more food for thought.
However, the idea of the universe just being here, a brute fact, a product of blind chance and nothing more is a personally unsatisfactory one due to the extraordinary nature of the universe and so whist the Design Argument may not conclusively prove the existence of God it suggests that the existence of a Designer, who we know as God, is a more probable likelihood than not. Science shows the design of the universe. Science strengthens the design argument as it shows us more and more information about the universe. Therefore there is even more reason for believing that there was and is a designer who planned and created the universe. But there is no proof that the designer is God.
It argued that the world around us can be used as evidence to prove the existence of God - through the natural order that occurs in our lives, bodies and minds. He used the analogy of a watch to emphasis the complexity of our world. To me, this doesn’t prove the Christian God because the jump from a watch to a human is too great. Also the way the universe functions is organic, but a watch is mechanistic. One could say that even if this argument does conclude that the universe had a creator, this does not necessarily mean that it still exists.
How can anyone rationally conclude that there is a God from the simple statement that a first cause is necessary for the existence of anything? A first cause does not prove God, it only assumes that there is a God, at best. Could one not put matter in the place of God in St. Aquinas’s argument and still assume there is a first efficient cause? The theory that matter “is”, is just as plausible as the theory that God “is”. Matter is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning nor end.
Ontological arguments are a priori, which show that God exists without appealing to a sense experience. These ontological arguments argue about what God is to where he is from. St. Anselm, the creator of the ontological argument, based his theory on that we cannot think of anything greater than God. Therefor God must exist, why you might ask? If the greatest thing that we can conceive does not exist than we can still conceive the greatest thing that does exist, and that would be God.
In the article “On Being an Atheist”, H. J. McCloskey tries to show that believing in God is unreasonable. McCloskey first tries to point out flaws in theism by trying to disprove the cosmological and the teleological arguments. After trying to show the flaws in the two argument he brings up the problem of evil to try to discredit theism as a self-contradictory belief. At the end of his article he tries to show his readers that atheism is comforting and that theism is not. When you go through McCloskey’s argument it shows many flaws in his reasoning as he wanted to show that it is impossible that there is a God.
Fortunately, Evans clarified some misconceptions about the characteristics of God in his article. For one, atheists refute the belief of an all powerful being because it will result to absurdity. According to them such a being should be able to create an object that is both a circle and a box or if not create a boulder so heavy that he himself cannot carry. But such a rebuttal should not be considered as worthy to be accepted. It is only a mockery.
One of these ideas was the fact that God must exist because he is a perfect entity, and without a perfect entity existing, he would not be able to think about perfection. He argues that it is possibly to clearly perceive God because he exists, and then argues that because we clearly perceive God, he must exist. This argument is poorly thought out, and is considered a circular argument. There is no solid justification as ... ... middle of paper ... ... absence of God or something to create everything. Kant argues that humans can never have knowledge of something in metaphysics, because it is not something he or anyone can prove in space, time or causation.
In other words, if one looks at the world this way, i.e., a place created and totally dominated by God who decides what is morally good, who ultimately decides the fate of every human being, it seems that humans are not significantly free after all, unless one considers freedom from God’s perspective. As a matter of fact, Augustine does not realize that if it is as he argues that God foreknows every event in the world, then God created determined creatures that have no knowledge of being determined. Augustine points out that, “…although God foreknows our future wills, it does not follow from this that we do not will something by our own will.” (184.108.40.206). Augustine’s argument here supports my criticism. Namely, what follows from this argument is that humans in reality are not free because every action that they will is necessary, thus already pre-determined by God.
This could be interpreted as a personification of god because being an “artificer” and the ab... ... middle of paper ... ...e of ourselves, but simply to preserve ourselves as nature intended (Discourses 8:23). Epictetus’s god is not a caring, personal god as a cursory glance at the texts might have someone believe. While at first glance it may seem as though Epictetus’s god appears to be a personal god, a closer look at the texts reveal that his god is a pantheistic one who is not at all like the personal god of monotheism. His god is one with the universe and the true essence of his god is the rationality of intelligence, right reason, and knowledge while a personal god is a separate entity from the world but cares and watches over from above. Although both Epictetus’s god and the personal god of monotheism are both all good and all powerful, they are so in very different ways.