Atheism has been an enemy of Christians for centuries, but recently there has been a new movement of atheism who are more vocal than ever. The main difference between modern atheists and atheists from the past is that new atheists are more vocal with their beliefs that no one intelligent or educated could believe in God. They mainly use science and philosophy to argue their position. One of the main arguments that new atheists use is that there is no proof that God can exist. There are many ways in which this argument falls short. One reason that some form of a deity exists and is the designer of the universe is that the universe is too complex to not have a higher power design it. There are so many factors that would have had to come together …show more content…
If God did not exist, then there would be no reason for scientists and philosophers to argue otherwise. It would be a nonissue. It would not even be worth talking about. Why do atheists spend so much time and energy on a God they do not even believe exists?
The best argument that an atheist can make against Christianity is about the existence of evil in the world. They argue that if God exists there would not be so much suffering and evil in the world. They say that if God was loving and all powerful he would not allow all the pain in the world. Atheists argue that God is either cruel or he is not all-powerful.
There are ways in which Christians can respond to this criticism. First, it is important to note there are two kinds of suffering that exist in the world. The first is human on human suffering such as war, violence, and other kinds of moral evil. This kind of evil exists because of free will. Moral evil and its consequences comes from the choices that we make. These choices are a result of a fallen world. While suffering that comes from sin is unfortunate, it is humanity’s fault, and God choosing in intervene would mean giving up free
…show more content…
This comes back around to the argument of moral law. Christians know that the suffering in the world is bad because it is not from God, and does not line up with his plan for us. But, in a world without God, who is to say that the suffering is bad, and not suffering is good. These assumptions assume that there is a perfect standard. This perfect standard is God.
The main argument that atheists, especially new atheists, make is that there is no way that God can exist. They also argue that no one with any understanding of the world could ever accept God as real. This is not the case, because science and faith do not have to disagree. Christians along with atheists have struggled with the question of evil and suffering, but the question in and of itself points to the existence of a higher power who is the picture of
“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” (Lewis, 1994, p. 91). Throughout history man has had to struggle with the problem of evil. It is one of the greatest problems of the world. Unquestionably, there is no greater challenge to man’s faith then the existence of evil and a suffering world. The problem can be stated simply: If God is an all-knowing and all-loving God, how can He allow evil? If God is so good, how can He allow such bad things to happen?Why does He allow bad things to happen to good people? These are fundamental questions that many Christians and non-Christians set out to answer.
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.
Not preventing suffering is the same as actively inflicting it. Humans generally believe that if they love another person, they should prevent their loved ones from suffering. Why shouldn't God be the same? If a human causes suffering for an...
The problem of evil is a difficult objection to contend with for theists. Indeed, major crises of faith can occur after observing or experiencing the wide variety and depths of suffering in the world. It also stands that these “evils” of suffering call into question the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The “greater good defense” tries to account for some of the issues presented, but still has flaws of its own.
In relation to the replies about the problem of evil it is very implausible that an omnibenevolent god could exist since evil is present. However in terms of the problem of evil, there is not enough information or reasoning to suggest either god’s existence or non-existence. Christians could simply argue that god is not always omnibenevolent and that everything happens for a reason, including evil, perhaps part of a plan that current generations undergo suffering for the greater good of future generations. In contrast, atheistic people could suggest that if that were true then that is unfair and god is not suppose to be unfair.
The existence of a God is always questioned, but it is questioned even more so at times of suffering. As Rabbi Dr Louie Jacobs comments “If God exists… how and why could such a Being tolerate all the pain, misery, and anguish that is often the lot of humanity”.
In the article “On being an Atheist”, by H.J. McCloskey, the author first says that these arguments for theism are only “proofs” and cannot be truly proven. However, there are certain things that cannot be explained and therefore an individual can use “the best explanation approach”. This approach suggests that since there are certain situations that cannot be explained, that situation can be said that it could possibly be caused by God. These things that cannot be explained such as the emergence of language in civilizations or the idea of an atom that we cannot neither see nor touch. McCloskey also addresses in his article the cosmological argument and how it can be disproven.
The Proof of the Existence of God There are many arguments that try to prove the existence of God. In this essay I will look at the ontological argument, the cosmological. argument, empirical arguments such as the avoidance of error and the argument from the design of the. There are many criticisms of each of these that would say the existence of God can’t be proven that are perhaps.
Atheism of a certain sort can be supported by appeal to the existence of widespread nonbelief in God. This is shown by a Canadian philosopher, J. L. Schellenberg, in his book Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason. His argument is as follows:
First of all, agnostics tend to use emotional arguments rather than rational ones. This is prominent in the film, God’s Not Dead. Professor Raddison was an atheist through and through, which cause him to mistreat his Christian student. Raddison states, “I hate God” and his student, Josh Wheaton relies, “How can you hate someone that doesn’t exist?” Furthermore, for one to claim that the universe simply appeared out of nowhere and was created from nothing, by nothing is extremely flawed reasoning. Agnostics will swear up and down that science is the absolute truth, yet they continue to argue that something can be created from nothing; it is well known that is invalid. Using mathematics, the most accurate branch of science, one can easily disprove that argument. For example, 8 ÷ 0=undefined, meaning it is impossible. This clearly displays that something cannot be created from nothing. Every effect must first have a cause and every existence in our world is the result of a cause that permitted its existence. Such as humans, nobody can zap a baby into existence, it must first be created. In addition, the theistic God is an uncaused God, which many agnostics fail to comprehend. Therefore, according to a theist, God is both antecedent and eternal; he is neither caused nor uncaused. Similar to matter,
Theology is an intentionally reflective endeavor. Every day we reflect upon the real, vital, and true experience of the benevolent God that exists. We as humans tend to be social beings, and being so we communicate our beliefs with one another in order to validate ourselves. Furthermore atheism has many forms, three of the most popular atheistic beliefs include: scientific atheism, humanistic atheism and the most popular one being protest atheism. Scientific atheism is the idea that science is the answer for everything and god is not existent. The humanistic approach states that society is self-sufficient; therefore God is not needed for survival. Therefore how could he exist? The position that I will argue in this paper is the pessimistic idea of protest atheism.
...ferences and similarities as its predecessor atheism. Individuals and groups continue to assert their ideologies through their writings and critics continue to rebut these claims. As discussed, new atheism has shown evident different approaches in showing how religion has detrimental effects on society using events such as the many previous wars that have been initiated due to issues concerning religion. New atheism also addresses how these views and conceptions are forced upon children which highlight the significant developments of the ideas that have emerged since traditional atheistic times. By understanding how atheism and new atheism has developed and evolved, it can also be understood that there will be an endless and continuous arrivals of more diverse interpretations, approaches and goals of new atheism and issues revolving around religion in the future.
The problem of reconciling an omnipotent, perfectly just, perfectly benevolent god with a world full of evil and suffering has plagued believers since the beginning of religious thought. Atheists often site this paradox in order to demonstrate that such a god cannot exist and, therefore, that theism is an invalid position. Theodicy is a branch of philosophy that seeks to defend religion by reconciling the supposed existence of an omnipotent, perfectly just God with the presence of evil and suffering in the world. In fact, the word “theodicy” consists of the Greek words “theos,” or God, and “dike,” or justice (Knox 1981, 1). Thus, theodicy seeks to find a sense of divine justice in a world filled with suffering.
God can be defined as a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions (1). There are many people that do not believe in any religion. People who do not believe in a religion have no reason for believing in a God. People who do not believe in a God and argue against the existence of God are proving something that is completely false. There is a God for numerous reasons.
Let’s start off by explaining what atheism is, it’s when you don’t believe in any form of an “Intelligent Creator” or God, as usually referred to as. The word atheism comes from the root word “theism”, which is when you believe in a God, or numerous Gods depending on the religion, and the prefix “a”, which means “not”. There are no set practices of atheism, or a set list of beliefs. To be an atheist you must believe what you would like and simply live your life without constraints based on what you believe is good or bad, not what you are told is good or bad. There is a constant debate against atheism from the theist side, because both sides’ arguments are polar opposites and each believes their side of the argument is 100% valid. I will state my view on some arguments, and clarify some common atheist stereotypes.