More handpicked essays just for you.
The existences of god
Discussion essay about the existence of god
Discussion essay about the existence of god
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. On cosmological contention, the first contention he puts crosswise over is that the "negligible presence of the world constitutes no purpose behind putting stock in such a being [i.e., an essentially existing being]" (Mccloskey 51). The way that there are animals on the planet that don't know how they started to be is an implication that some being must have been there with a specific end goal to cause their presence or else, these animals might not be in presence since the trail couldn't be infinite(Evans and Manis 73). On the planet, very nearly everything event must be created by something, a tree may not fall if not slice or excessively old to stand. Along these lines, the presence of the universe must be reliant on a cause that was not brought on in light of the fact that the reasons are not boundless. As in... ... middle of paper ... ...e confirmation to his contentions. From the verifications gave by theists, it is clear they include and are incongruence with one another. On the first contention, he realizes that a maker existed by belligerence it is dislodged by development. This may not be genuine as indicated by the illustration given and also the way that everything that exists needs to have had a beginning. The reasons can't be endless, important there was a cause that was autonomous and not created by an alternate reason. References Craig William Lane. The Absurdity of Life without God. reasonablefaith.org, n.d. Web February 28, 2013. Evans, C. Stephen and Manis R. Zachary. Philosophy of Religion, 2nd Ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. Print. Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God. New York, NY: Riverhead, 2008. Print. McCloskey, H.J. “On Being an Atheist,” Question 1: 51-54. Print.
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.
Pecorino, Philip A. "Section 4: What is Religion?" Philosophy of Religion. 2001. 15 November 2007.
Charles S. Peirce published in the Hibbert Journal in 1908 an article titled, "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God." The article sketches what Peirce calls, in a later comment, "a nest of three arguments for the Reality of God" (6.486). (1)
Mackie in his paper Evil and Omnipotence, constructs an argument against the idea of the possibility of a God existing that has the characteristics laid out by the main religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. These characteristics include that God is omnipotent, or He is capable of stopping evil, and omni benevolent, or He wants to eliminate evil and He is entirely good. Mackie systematically goes through his logical thought process as well as his response to any type of criticism or alternative solution that might arise. The main point of his argument is to establish that God, as constructed by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, could not possibly exist. It is one of the most highly regarded arguments towards atheism.
Does God exist? That is the question that so many scholars, peasants, governments, and individuals have been trying to answer from the beginning of human civilization to the present and beyond. Every group in the history of mankind, from Taiwan to Jamaica, from the top of Russia to the bottom of Chile, has said yes to a form of divinity. Their religions have ranged from one God to one million Gods to no God and these religions have defined culture, tradition, lifestyle, and the society of the place; they have ruled nations and defined nations, inspired nations and controlled nations. Not every person has been a believer but every culture has had a belief. Yet somehow, despite this vast evidence that there must be something or else everyone in the history of mankind is delusional, atheism has taken rise in the west. “Science” is the new salvation and human’s greatest belief in something grater is simply a mistake. Great atheists have arisen: Dawkins, Nagel, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett, just to name a few, have taken hold of America. No longer is religion the way; now religion, specifically Christianity, is the bane of mankind. So we shall take a look at their convincing ideas and twisted words, through the work of Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker in Answering the New Atheism, to examine the question: Does God exist?
Heschel, Abraham Joshua. Man Is Not Alone; a Philosophy of Religion. New York: Farrar, Straus & Young, 1951. Print.
In conclusion, McCloskey attempted to defeat the cosmological and teleological argument and tried to persuade the readers to embrace the view of atheism. That there is no God and that this life is the only one a person can have. He tried influencing people by asking why a perfect God make an imperfect world. Or why did God not make humans to choose the right decision automatically, so that they can avoid suffering? However, in the end, although his arguments are sound and he made very reasonable points. The facts remain that there must be something out there that made the universe and that has created us complex beings. This same being must have be able to give man the choice to make his own decision, even if it were the wrong one. There is only one possible being that could do that and that is none other than God.
In conclusion, there must have been a necessary being which served as the first cause of the Universe. This necessary being can be referred to as God. I make this conclusion due to my understanding of the evidence given above and the fact that there are no reasonable arguments that beyond reasonable doubt can prove otherwise. In addition, it is my finding that the roots of the Cosmological Argument are firmly cemented in a posteriori observation (induction), as opposed to purely rational thought which is deductive. Knowing how this argument is classified is imperative because it is essential to understanding the structure of the argument and how it arrives at its conclusion.
It is no secret that the question or arguments for God’s existence arises in the minds of most individuals, but how does the one who believes so emphatically in the existence of God, respond to the one who insistently believes there is no God? In the article entitled, “On Being an Atheist,” the writer H.J. McCloskey makes his claims for atheism by disparagingly pointing out what he deems as contentions with Theism. He believes it is more comfortable to be an atheist than to believe in a God. It is quite possible for many to read this article and be agreeably overwhelmed by the many points McCloskey makes, however, for the minds and hearts who are strongly opposed to such remarks against theism, a response is necessary and even imperative to
Kreeft, Peter and Tacelli, Ronald. “Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God.” Intervarsity Press, 1994. Web. 27 April 2014.
Eastman, Roger. The Ways of Religion: An Introduction to the Major Traditions. Third Edition. Oxford University Press. N.Y. 1999
In this essay I will discuss both the strengths and weakness of the cosmological argument for the existence of God and conclude that the cosmological argument is a weak one. I will begin by outlining the simple version of the argument and its strongest criticism, which is the causal principle. I will then define contingent, necessary, dependent and independent and discuss the importance of these definitions. Following on from this, I will discuss the Kalam cosmological argument, which is an argument that attempts to avoid the criticism of the simple version by including a premise regarding the beginning of beings such as the universe. I will argue that, whilst the Kalam cosmological argument is shown to be successful to some extent, the
Smart, Ninian. "Blackboard, Religion 100." 6 March 2014. Seven Dimensions of Religion. Electronic Document. 6 March 2014.
...ature of God’s creation. The vastness of that which He’s created suggests that there will be things that humans won’t be able to logically sort out. This inability should not, however, be mistaken as proof that the A-Series or another complex entity does not exist. McTaggart’s argument lacks proof of his claim; he uses his opposition’s inability to form a definite refutation of his claim while he never really provides one himself.
Kohn, Risa Levitt, and Rebecca Moore. A Portable God: The Origin of Judaism and Christianity. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. Print.