If we examine independently the arguments presented by McCloskey they too lack adequacy to establish the nonexistence of God. McCloskey begins by addressing the cosmological argument. He proposes that the existence of the world itself does not give reason to believe in a necessarily existing being. McCloskey believes there is a lack of evidence to show the world had a cause and that God was that cause. However, Evans and Manis suggest there are beings in this world that are unaware of how they came to exist.
The cosmological argument is however not a valid argument in explaining the existence of god because the conclusions do not logically follow the premises. The main point in the cosmological argument is the first cause. As stated (by Aquinas) the world... ... middle of paper ... ...he conclusion does not logically follow. If nothing is self creating, god for whatever reason should not be an exception. Aquinas first way suggested thing in motion are put in motion something.
The intricacy of a simple time telling device has sparked controversy about the creation of the universe. In William Paley’s “The Analogical Teleological Argument” he argues that the universe must have been created by a universe maker, God, due to its complexity. However, David Hume, provides an empiricist objection by arguing that one cannot prove the existence of a universe maker due to lack of experience regarding the creation of a universe. Ultimately, I will argue that Paley’s argument by design is not sufficient for proving God 's existence because, as individuals, we cannot assume that the world works the way we wish it. Paley’s claims that the universe must have an intelligent maker due to the complexity of its design.
As the argument is reliant on this assumption, it falls apart as the deductions made are based on this whole concept. To counter this, the philosopher Malcolm disagrees with Kant by saying that existence can be a property of a necessary being such as God. The same concept can’t be applied to contingent beings, such as coins, because they are imperfect beings. I don’t believe this to be valid however, as we don’t know for certain anything about God’s properties. Aquinas believes, as humans we don’t have the intellect to prove God’s existence Overall, this shows that the ontological argument doesn’t prove God’s existence, as existence can’t be a predicate, so any deductions made from this assumption can’t form valid conclusion... ... middle of paper ... ...esses his suspicion of the argument as it “lacks a single piece of data from the real world”.
Philosophers say this proves that it cannot have been just random chance. Design qua purpose looks at the evidence of design in terms of how all ... ... middle of paper ... ... to change your beliefs. I.e. it won't convince an atheist. 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.
In “God, Design, and Fine-Tuning”, Robin Collins argues for the Intelligent Design of the universe from the Fine-Tuning Argument. Collins’ argument is probabilistic in nature; however, it fails due to its misuse of probability theory. Aided by the work of both Bradley Monton and Mark Colyvan, I will show why Collins’ argument fails. It can be shown that this line of reasoning concludes that the existence of a life permitting universe is zero. Essentially, Collins’ argument does not prove what he claims it does and is too strong to account for the existence of a life permitting universe because it not only misuses probability, but is rendered useless due to the paradoxes inherent in probability theory.
Believing that god is the one who makes us have ideas, without concrete proof would be reckless. This is why I believe that if god`s existence cannot be proven there shouldn’t be any arguments stating that this spirit is the one who controls everything. Lastly, since it`s impossible to prove god`s existence, Berkeley`s response fails to skepticism even if he`s completely right when he says that everything is an idea.
I will argue against the ability of science to demonstrate that belief in God is unreasonable. I will do this by showing that science cannot even answer the simple question of where do its laws come from and how did they come into being. If science cannot even answer this simple question how it hope to answer the much more difficult question of is there a God. As science cannot answer the question of whether or not God exists it cannot make belief in God unreasonable. Science is limited in its scope therefor there are questions it cannot answer.
Though there is some debate as to the existence of God, the matter has not been sufficiently proven one way or the other. In the event that there is a God who is consistent with the traditional Western theory of a tri-omni being and whose existence is proved through use of the Cosmological Argument, its existence cannot be disproved by the Problem of Evil. The Problem of Evil itself is disproved by the Free Will Defense and the compatibility of Determinism with the Free Will Defense. Much to the relief of St. Thomas Aquinas, the existence of evil cannot in and of itself disprove the Cosmological Argument.
Firstly, Descartes made the mistake of supporting a conclusion with premises that can only be true if the conclusion was a premise for the other premises that were supporting it. To clarify, Descartes basically stated that the clarity of his reasoning and perceptions are only possible through the existence of a non-deceiving God and that the non-deceiving God can only be proved through the clear reasoning and perceptions that the non-deceiving God bestowed upon him (51, 52). This is clearly a... ... middle of paper ... ...he Soul and the existence of God are not only unreliable but weak and inconsistent. Descartes fell victim to a circular argument concerning where the ability for humans to clearly perceive and reason, mistakenly tried to reconcile science and religion in terms of mind/body dualism, and he rejected all empirical knowledge. The philosophy of Descartes possibly had good intentions but failed time and again.