God Over Atheism Elizabeth McIver ID: L25662046 PHIL 201 B06 Spring 2018 Abstract How do you justify a belief in God when there is no absolute proof? H.J. McCloskey, an atheist, would suggest you don’t. How do we find comfort and security in the midst of turmoil? Do we lean on God or rely on ourselves? How do we find peace when surrounded by evil? All very valid and complex questions that, to date are still being debated. God Over Atheism When there is no absolute proof, how do you come to a decision to believe in God? The first misconception is in the term proof. Proof implies the idea that something is factual. I believe the correct term should be evidence, which leads us to the question is there enough evidence to draw a conclusion or to make a decision about God? You don’t simply look at the reasons as proof, but more as bits of evidence. Like an attorney, use each bit of evidence provided to draw a conclusion as to whether to believe or not to believe in God. In his article “On Being an …show more content…
McCloskey asks, “might not God have very easily so have arranged the world and biased man to virtue that men always freely chose what is right?” (pg. 53) The word free by definition means not being restricted or regulated. So to answer McCloskey’s question, no I don’t believe so. If we go back to the idea that Adam was created as a caregiver and a companion for God and not as an equal than he would have had to be created to have free thoughts otherwise God would basically be talking to himself. Also, if you trust in the Scripture then you know that God didn’t want to distance himself from the world it was Satan that wanted the world distant from God. Again a being like God interfered. Satan was the being that introduced evil to the world, and it was mankind who freely chose to disobey. One could argue that if it weren’t for Satan then evil as we know it would never have existed in our
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Argument Against the Argument of Pascal’s Wager In Pascal’s Wager, Pascal pioneered new thoughts and opinions amongst his peers in probability theories by attempting to justify that believing in God is advantageous to one’s personal interest. In this paper, I will argue that Pascal’s argument rationalizing why one should believe in God fails and I will suggest that even if one was to accept Pascal’s wager theory, this will not be a suffice resolution to reap the rewards that God has promised to Christian believers like myself who has chosen to believe in God due to my early childhood teachings, familial and inherited beliefs. Pascal offers a logical reason for believing in God: just as the hypothesis that God's existence is improbable, the
The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist.
Ideas about religion began to rapidly change from the mid-sixteenth century to the late-eighteenth century. The Protestant Reformation began to challenge the longstanding ideas of the Catholic Church, creating numerous sects of Christianity in the process. In Spain, the Inquisition controlled religious thought and persecuted those who believed differently. For quite some time, religion was controlled and monitored, as it was unacceptable to share a religious view that did not coincide with the majority. However, war, social thought, and change in laws generated an increase in religious toleration.
McCloskey claims atheism is more comforting than theism. In a world without God life could be devastating, we would be doomed to death. God is the hope for mankind for love and immortality, if God didn’t exist mankind would not exist. There would be no significance to one’s life to become inspired to do great things. There could be a moral standard to prevent mass genocide, war and taking of lives if God did not exist in world.
There have been an innumerable amount of arguments for the existence of God for hundreds of years. Some have become much more popular due to their merit, and their ability to stay relevant through changing times. Two arguments in particular that have been discussed for a very long time are the ontological and cosmological arguments. Each were proposed in the period of the high middle ages by members of the Roman Catholic Church. They each have been used extensively by many since their introduction.
For this disputation, I had the pleasure of arguing against the topic of be it resolved that you can convince a non-believer to affirm the existence of God using philosophical arguments. As the opposing side, Sarah and I counter argued the following: the argument from motion, the ontological argument, Pascal’s Wager, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument. The argument from motion argues that it is only possible to experience that which exists, and people experience God, therefore God must exist; however it can be counter argued that since faith cannot be demonstrated or experienced, as it is unseen, God cannot exist.
Is a God unable to suppress the evil or does he have no solution to problem of evil? The thesis posited by Mackie that evil exists and there is no God to stop the evil is still relevant to today. We still have wars, incurable diseases and struggles on this planet.
During the 20th century, he was known as the one of the most prolific public atheists of his time publishing countless books and papers challenging the existence of a God. He claimed that atheism should be the intelligent man’s perspective until empirical evidence showed the contrary. In order to stay true to his claims, he took it upon himself to stay up to date with scientific and theological advances. Later in life, he adapted his perspective when news arose, which he classified as sufficient evidence, to believing that a divine creature did indeed exist. In this case, Flew’s perspective, to search for opposing evidence, motivated him to seek
Stephen Jay Gould turned 60 the day before September 11, 2001. He was already suffering from his second attack of cancer after twenty years free, this time of the lung, from which he would die the following spring. He had overcome a usually-fatal form of abdominal cancer in his 40s, suffering intensely for two years yet proving, through his survival, the seemingly useless abstract nature of statistics. As a campaigner against creationism, Gould advocated approaching science and religion as two distinct fields that simply do not overlap, not unlike Dawkins but with a drier explanation that unexpectedly becomes much more beautiful. We may understand Gould to mean that one can have both a scientific and religious perspective on the world, but more importantly, his account pinpoints how nature does not, because it cannot, provide evidence that would somehow be available through the moral lens of the human.
H.J. McCloskey’s article “On Being an Atheist” he argues the existence of God and we should abandoned all “proofs” of this idea. In approaching the question of God’s existence, we cannot prove God or that other things exist. Proof is a certainty and without a shadow of doubt. However, it is possible I could be wrong, but I don’t believe I am. The best explanation of God’s existence is seen in certain effects we see in the universe such as science.
ID: 000883370 537 Words Pascal suggests that the faith in believing God is a "wager". For any person S, he or she has two choices can be made. One choice is α, the other is β, and if α is chosen to have a greater benefit for S, S should choose α. Taking into account the existence of God or not has half of the possibility, and believing God has greater benefit. Therefore, people should choose to believe in the existence of God.
In this paper, I will begin by stating the Problem of Evil. Following this I will include two objections to the argument and why I find the argument to not be convincing. The Problem of Evil is an argument concerning the existence of God and why God cannot exist because of the presence of evil in the world. The argument begins by saying that God is both all-powerful and wholly good, and that evil exists in the world. However, these statements contradict each other, so all three cannot be true.
If you grant this argument as valid, and are consequentially moved to choose to believe in God through reason, you are now meet with the obstacle of convincing yourself to believe. Pascal says that in this case you should not try to convince yourself by trying to further prove God’s existence, but instead you should observe those who have
The religious arguments precisely mean that experiences are part of religion and contribute towards ups and downs of faith, achievement and doubts. The religious experiences are ones which are connected to God or God’s action. The religious experiences are divine according to some philosophers and therefore God Exists. These experiences are on the whole similar to perceptions or also taken as vertical and further more they show world accurately according to some philosophers these religious experiences are similar to each other.