McCloskey claimed that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” At first glance of this statement I am understanding the statement as that something doesn’t allow us to come up with a belief or solution, which is silly. In the same thinking one could say that based on his arguments he is not allowed to assume there is no God. Nevertheless, based on the existence of a contingent being it points toward the existence of a necessary being because they require an ultimate cause. Beyond this, the cosmological argument may be limited. Upon a person believing this they will surely be thirsting for more information of who God is. While there is limitation on this argument with some questions
In particular Chris Mccandless should be supported for he had things happen to him that led up to the point where he wanted to go into the wild to get away from his old life and created a new one for himself to have more opportunities. Others may think he shouldn’t be supported just because he some bad flaws he had and also that he just left his sister who he actually got along with, but here are some reasons that are logical and reasonable to why Chris Mccandless should be supported. One of the reasons why readers should support Chris McCandless is because he is generous, he gave people inspiration, or felt inspired by others, and like in the book Krakauer tells us “Chris’s Father suggested the boy had probably been inspired. ”(94),his way of living inspired everyone that you can live anyway you want.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence 2. The universe began to exist 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of existence His defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument revolves mostly around the second premise. This is mostly due to him finding the first premise as intuitively obvious, where he claims that “no one, seriously denies it”. From experience, we find that physical objects do not come into existence without causes.
On the teleological argument, McCloskey’s claim that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed” is not reasonable. Why does one side of the equation need examples and the other does not, is not a fair assessment of a problem. There should always be examples to prove that each side is disputable or undisputable for the premise. A person can assume that a statement is true but that does not make the argument true and in all fairness why would that argument be considered true without some type of proof. The teleological argument is to show probability of theism, exhibit purpose of order, design and infer that the cause must be an intelligent
The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.
This is its biggest weakness, in order for it to succeed someone has to presuppose that God exists. Another weakness is based on whether or not existence is an actual property of something like its size, weight, or color. If existence isn’t considered a property then it fails, but if it is then it succeeds. Then there is the cosmological argument.
The ontological argument states that perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails existence, and so the concept of God entails God’s existence. However, it can be argued that if God is an infinite goodness, then its contrary, evil, should not exist. Alas, there is evil in the world, and, therefore, God cannot exist. The ontological argument also seeks to demonstrate that God exists on the basis of concept alone. Pascal’s Wager attempts to justify the belief in God with an
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.
Black holes are areas in which huge amounts of mass are compressed together, creating a gravitational field so strong that when it crosses the black hole, not even light can escape. They are the final stage for stars 10-15 times as massive as our Sun, because after they explode into a supernova, the gravity causes them to collapse into themselves. They shrink and compress mass until the former star’s volume is at 0. When this happens, they become infinitely dense and the star’s own light becomes trapped inside. The black holes can only pull in objects of similar or lesser mass, since their gravitational pull is only as strong as their mass.
Dominican philosopher and theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, created the “Five Ways” of God’s existence – motion, causation, contingency, gradations, intelligence of design – in which the first two are cosmological arguments. Aquinas’s argument from motion states that it’s obvious some things in the universe are moving, and if they’re moving, something else must have caused them to move, and something else must have caused that to move… and so on. However, the pattern of movements can’t go on forever since there wouldn’t be that one thing that started the whole series. Therefore, there must be an “initial mover, an extraordinary being that started the universe moving but is not itself moved by anything else – and this being we call God,” (Vaughn, Lewis. Pg. 65).
The traditional claim of all Cosmological Arguments is defined as “something outside the universe is responsible to explain the existence of the universe” (PowerPoint 380). In the “causal argument,” or the First Cause Argument on the cosmological argument, “something” outside of the universe that is supposed to inform us about the existence of the universe is argued to be explained as God. As the first cause argument goes into depth and with the help of Thomas Aquinas, it is easy to see how God is responsible for explaining the existence of the universe around us. Within the first cause argument on the cosmological argument the following premises and conclusions are discussed: Premise 1: There exists things that are caused. Meaning that
The universe and everything in it is out come. There must be something that evoke everything to come true into existence. Sooner or later, there must be something whose looking over which is god. In the beginning stage in the argument is a
If we think god is perfect and superior than everything we know then anything greater than god can’t be imagined. If we think god as not
Since premise two has been rebuffed by me, it renders premise 3 unsound which in turn renders premise four unsound thereby proving that God does not exist and proving that the first cause argument does not validate or prove the existence of God. The first cause argument while it is a very important argument still lacks credibility and is self-defeating as it is riddled with a lot of problems that makes it hard to reach a true and sound
In this argument we already assumed that there may be possibility that God exist and finally we reached where we started. So this argument does not give us the exact information about existence of God. There are many objections on this argument but still it is a powerful argument. In my opinion, this argument is not much satisfactory. It describes that existence is greater than imagination.
I will start my points in this argument by, first, opposing the evidences and reasons why we should believe that God exists and second, by pointing one of many reasons why we should believe that God does not exist. In opposing