In Lara Buchak’s essay, Can It Be Rational to Have Faith?, she asserts that everyday faith statements and religious faith statements share the same attributes. She later states that in order to truly have faith, a person ceases to search for more evidence for their claim, and that having faith can be rational. Although she makes compelling arguments in favor of faith in God, this essay is more hearsay and assumption than actual fact. In this paper, you will see that looking for further evidence would constitute not having faith, but that having faith, at least in the religious sense, is irrational.
Evil and the existence of God has been at the heart of philosophical arguments for years. It seems that evil should cancel out God’s existence. Evil is defined in two ways. One definition is evil as gratuitous suffering. B.C. Johnson uses this in his argument against the existence of a monotheistic God. The second definition is evil is a distortion of a natural good, such as blindness being a disorder of sight. Sight is a good thing, but blindness is a perversion or distortion of it. John Hick uses that definition. The monotheistic definition of God is that God is all-good and all-powerful. If God is those things, then He would not want evil and He could actually prevent it. Which, leads to believe that there should be no evil if God is those
Blaise Pascal takes a unique approach in defending the eternal question of God 's existence. "Pascal 's Wager" is the name given to the argument written by himself stating that it is prudent to believe in God 's existence because it is the best bet. Suppose that there is a winning sweepstakes ticket that is worth a new luxurious car and there are only two tickets to choose from. We know that one of them is the winning ticket, while the other is worth nothing. We are allowed to buy only one of the two tickets, at random. Would it be a good investment to spend a dollar on the good chance of winning that new car? Pascal argues that "believing" in God will give you the best outcome than to not believe. In the end, Pascal does not
Professors Richard Dawkins and John Lennox go head to head in a battle to match their superior intellect. The debate was titled “Has Science Buried God?” Lennox also announced his new book “Gods Undertaker”.
being a theist, I find Aquinas 's fifth argument significant because the universe is in a perfect
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. The next statement is that there are no limits that can be placed on an all-powerful thing. Also, a wholly good being will eliminate evil as much as possible. If these two statements are true then an all-powerful, wholly good being is able to eliminate all evil in the world.
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.
Heavily influenced by Max Weber, Peter Berger was interested in the meaning of social structures. Berger’s concern with the meaning societies give to the world is apparent throughout his book The Sacred Canopy (1967), in which he drew on the sociology of knowledge to explain the sociological roots of religious beliefs. His main goal is to convince readers that religion is a historical product, it is created by us and has the power to govern us.
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 essay I will be writing about Blaise Pascal, a mathematician and French philosopher whose work became very popular due to his "Wager". Pascal's argument in his essay "The Wager" states that any rational human should believe in God. He states that regardless of whether or not God exists, the option of believing yields the greatest benefit and the least loss out of all the possibilities. In believing in God, one can receive infinite gain which is heaven, if God exist, and would only have finite losses if God does not exist. However, he shares that if one was to bet against god, if one wins or loses, the individual would either gain an insignificant finite if God does not exist, or lose everything if God does exist which would lead to going to Hell. He displays his thoughts in
Over the years, opinions on God have changed. Some people believed that God is terrifying and vengeful while others disagreed saying that He is loving and accepting of all. Jonathan Edwards was a Calvinist, who argued that unless one never sins, he or she is most likely doomed to hell. Edwards believed that humans are powerless in comparison to the power of God. In “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards, the author achieves his purpose of arguing that in order to be saved from an afterlife in hell, one must ask for forgiveness and accept Christ, through the uses of intense imagery, a terrifying tone, and understandable metaphors.
If someone lived their life by the Bible and lived what is known as a “good” life and goes to Heaven, if there really is one, they would be rewarded. However, if there was no such thing as going to Heaven and one lived their life with good morality and in a way that God would accept, you would basically just die and be “in the dark,” knowing you lived up to the right standards. On the other hand, if there really is a Heaven and one didn’t live his/her life in a good way by committing murder, stealing, or cheating on his/her significant other, they would burn in Hell. Everyone is hedging their bets by either living the “right” or “wrong” way because no one really knows if there is another life after this one besides the deceased people. I believe in God and that there is such a thing as a Heaven and Hell but have not fully read the Bible; therefore, I cannot battle with a non-believer or believer. Despite that, I know that I’m taking the better “wager” by believing in God. I know this for the reasons stated previously, plus when compared to the alternative, it makes more sense. Who would want to burn forever? The benefits of one are superior to the other, and the consequences are far more severe than the other. This is what Pascal was referring to and I support that belief and ‘’’wager’’ as
Heavily influenced by Max Weber, Peter Berger was interested in finding the meaning of social structures. This theme is apparent throughout his book The Sacred Canopy (1967), in which he drew on the sociology of knowledge to explain the sociological roots of religious beliefs. His main goal is to convince readers that religion is a historical product, it is created by us, yet also has the power to govern us.
A lot of arguments have been known to prove or disprove the existence of God, and the Problem of Evil is one of them. The Problem of Evil argues that it is impossible to have God and evil existing in the same world. Due to ideal characteristics of God, evil should not have a chance to exist and make human suffer. In this essay, I will examine the argument for the Problem of Evil, a possible theodicy against the argument, and reply to the theodicy.
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. That is right but here we are only imagining two situation one is just idea of God and another is idea plus reality. But how can we assume that God exists in reality even we don’t know about God’s existence. It seems just a logic which is self-contradictory. We can also apply this logic to other things, maybe this logic will not work. Let’s imagine that electricity is not available in a room, so fan, which is hanging there, is not working. Then we cannot say that fan is not working because electricity is not available. There may be some other problem with the fan. So reverse is not always true. So this argument is ambiguous.