1) Presupposition of Atheism
In my opening argument, I wish to prove that atheism/non-belief is justified. This is through an argument known as the presupposition of atheism. Atheism/Agnosticism is perfectly justified through the fact that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim, hence in the absence of extraordinary evidence the saying that God exists may be regarded as false.
1.If a claim is extraordinary, then in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false.
2.The claim that God exists is an extraordinary claim.
3.Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that a god exists may be considered false.
4.There is no extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor.
5.Therefore, the claim that god exists may be considered false.
This argument is often known as “Extraordinary claims means extraordinary evidence.” To clear everything up, I will define an “extraordinary claim” as the following:
Extraordinary claim: A claim that contradicts the accepted physical laws or our common sense, everyday experiences in the world.
Fact: Extraordinary claims vary in their degree of extraordinariness. For example, allow me to provide three statements:
1.I ate a PB&J for lunch.
2.I won $1,000,000 in the lottery.
3.I rode a unicorn through the forest last night and saw the tooth fairy.
Statement 1 is the least extraordinary of the three. It would not contradict the laws of common sense, nor would it contradict our physical experiences. Therefore, little evidence is required for a (rational) person to believe the statement.
Statement 2 is even more extraordinary because most people do not win the lotto. This claim contradicts our ...
... middle of paper ...
...ing learned something entails that one has gone from a state of ignorance to a state of knowledge.
8.God has gone from a state of ignorance to a state of knowledge.
9.There was a time when God was in the state of ignorance.
Works Cited
Krueger, Doug. "The Krueger-McHugh Debate: Theism or Atheism." Secular Web: Atheism, Agnosticism, Naturalism, Skepticism and Secularism. The Secular Web, 2003. Web. 10 Oct. 2011.
Drange, Theodore M. "Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey." Secular Web: Atheism, Agnosticism, Naturalism, Skepticism and Secularism. The Secular Web. Web. 10 Oct. 2011.
Martin, Michael. ""A Disproof of God's Existence" by Michael Martin." Secular Web: Atheism, Agnosticism, Naturalism, Skepticism and Secularism. Internet Infidels. Web. 12 Oct. 2011.
When all the evidence is noted (and there is even more beyond that which is stated here), one can not ignore the overwhelming presence of a
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
McCloskey dives right into the meat of his article by addressing what he refers to as “proofs” he claims were put forth by theists. I think that it is imperative to know the difference between a “proof” and an argument. A proof contains a note of certainty. It suggests that something can be known to be 100% truth. In one of the recent PointCast presentations, Dr. Foreman insists that we cannot know any with a complete certainty that we have absolute truth about the existence of God. Therefore these ideas should be put forth as arguments and not as proofs. In fact, if looking at it the other way, he cannot know for certain that his ideas are correct. If he uses his rebuttals to the theist’s arguments, they seem contradictory several times. As we have no absolute certainty for either side, we are left then to find the best possible explanation. This is widely used in cases where things simply cannot be known for certain such as the example of the black hole that Dr. Foreman used. Science can’t fully expl...
Just because there is not evidence does not mean that is evidence he does not exist. I do not believe that people believe in god, just because they do believe that god exist, but because it gives them something that others cannot. It brings people together and gives people hope in the worst of times, and it can fill voids in peoples lives that are rather impossible to fill. It also gives them a reason to live, and live moral ones at that. However, this is also a problem in the discussion of th...
Dawkins, Richard. "Quotes About Religion or Atheism." Quotes About Religion or Atheism. Atheists of Silicon Valley, n.d. Web. 05 Feb. 2014. .
forgiven, so there is no need to ‘force’ yourself to believe. This argument is far from proving the existence of God, it argues more for. the purpose of believing in him rather than whether he actually exists. The.. In conclusion, all the arguments bar one that have been covered have. been strongly criticised, questioning their validity.
of the arguments in favor of God, or a so-called "higher power" are based on
evidentiary fact in science, just like all other facts of biology, physics, chemistry, etc. It
...hal. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Called to Love: Christian Witness Can Be the Best Response to Atheist Polemics." America 198 (2008): 23. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 8 Dec. 2013.
Science and Religion dialogue has been a bitter-sweet topic for many people over the years. The controversy is not only common between one sole community, but affects a variety. The beliefs held about these topics has the potential to personally effect an individual, whether it be positively or negatively. In the United States, we draw only a fine line between religion and science, often failing to realize that the two benefit each other in copious ways but are not meant to interpreted in the same way. Due to this perspective, people seem to be influenced to pick one or the other, when in reality we should treat both science and religion with the same respect and recognize that they are completely separate from one another, along with having individual purposes. John F. Haught, a distinguished research professor at Georgetown University, published a book titled, “Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation”. In it he evaluates each side, persuading the reader that the truth is that both realms may benefit from each other despite the differences emphasized. John F. Haught introduces his audience with four approaches on Science and Religion. Haught’s third approach, contact, is of major significance to aid in the response of: “Does Science Rule out a Personal God?”
2) Gollwitzer, Helmut. The Existence of God: As Confessed By Faith. Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1965
In this essay I discuss why there is proof that there is a supernatural being known as God, who has created everything we know and experience. The mere claim, that there could be a "Proof for the Existence of God," seems to invite ridicule. But not always are those who laugh first and think later. Remember how all-knowing doctors/scientists laughed at every new discovery?
While faith alone cannot be said to necessitate truth, it is by no means useless as a basis for knowledge in the areas of knowledge of religion and the natural sciences. Faith allows a knower to make the decision of what is knowledge and what is not, even when the knowledge claim cannot be justified by evidence or empirical reasoning. Yet simultaneously, this quality of faith renders it useless in finding absolute truth. In the natural sciences, faith can be seen as both a necessity, as it is essential for the building of knowledge, and yet also it must be challenged, as the advancement of science is through the disproving of current theories.
6. Bohdan R. Bociurkiw and John W. Strong, Religion and Atheism in the U.S.S.R. and
The term ‘atheism’ first emerged in the 1500’s, based on the Ancient Greek vernacular used for ‘godless’. From the very beginning, there were a distinction in the way that people would choose to reject the notion of deities; positive atheism and negative atheism. Negative atheism, also know as ‘soft’ atheism, is when a person does not believe in deities but does not make the assertive claim that there are none that exist. The counterpart to negative atheism, positive atheism, is not negative atheism’s opposite but its more assertive variation. Positive atheism, unlike negative atheism, asserts with full confidence that deities cannot, have not, and will not objectively exist in ways that actively initiate real-word events. Negative atheism was coined by British philosopher Antony Garrard Newton Flew (February 11th 1923- April 8th 2010). Positive atheism’s publicity predates the coining of the term ‘negative atheism’ by a couple of centuries. Negative atheism was first coined as a term in 1976, and positive atheism was first...