Infinity makes it impossible to have a first efficient cause, but if there is no first cause, there would be no intermediate cause (universe), and we (nature) would not exist. In the ontological argument, St Anselm provides an argument that is based on logic. In order to understand his argument you must first ... ... middle of paper ... ... should be like (beliefs) in order to fill the Gap of the unknown with ideas about God. Having Faith would make reason understand God. Doubt exists in the believer and the non-believer because it is beyond our reason to determine the truth of God's existence.
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.
Evaluating the Arguments for God's Existence No one can prove to anyone the existence of God, as in a mathematical proof. In my opinion the theory of reason is too limited to know anything beyond human experiences. Throughout history many rational arguments have been put forward but if you don’t believe in God, you never will. The cosmological argument is a classical argument for the existence of God. It is also referred to as the first cause argument.
Thus, arguments one, two, four and five conclude that God exists because the world requires him as an explanation. Meanwhile, argument three concludes that God could not not exist. Yet, still some individuals insist that the proofs are wrong. The first proof, The Way of Motion, is about how things change in the world and how things are put into motion. Since you cannot infinitely regress backwards, there must be a first unmoved mover.
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.
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.
To illustrate the weak points in McCloskey’s article, I will start with his use of “proofs”. McCloskey uses “proofs” in his arguments when combating against whether God is real. He believes since it cannot be proved that God exists that anything that cannot be proven is invalid and should be omitted (On Being an Atheist, 1968). Dr. Mark Foreman says when arguing if something is true, do not use “proofs” as no matter what nothing can be proved including God (Foreman, 2012). Nothing can be positively proved throughout the universe, so the method of proving is invalid.
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.
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.
The first rule of philosophical discourse is clarity and since God is the main topic, there is no way in which we should avoid discussing the ontological argument. Actually, McCloskey’s failure to analyze the ontological argument is one of the reasons why he failed to understand the theists’ arguments. The diversity of religious beliefs scattered in the world is not aiding the theistic endeavor. It has further complicated the defenses used by theists all over the world. Fortunately, Evans clarified some misconceptions about the characteristics of God in his article.