Does God exist? This is a question that a lot of people have on their minds. People want to know how did we get here, is there a being beyond us that got us here, or did we come through from evolution. It has been studied by many philosophers to find the answer to this question. People believe what they want and most of the time ones mind cannot be changed. There are a couple of arguments that philosophers have come up with. When one is looking at different general types of arguments for God’s existence there are 2. One is a posteriori which is physical evidence and the second is a priori which is purely logical (Furman). The question is did we come from a being that is more powerful than us named God or are we existing through science evolution? …show more content…
He said that all of the links in the CB are explained by different temporal antecedents (Furman). What this means is that there are events that follow each other in a timely manner. He said the chain of being is just a group of links. David Hume had an explanation for everything that he said. He said that the reason he dose not believe in the Principle of Sufficient Reason is because the argument that Aquinas made was a failure. Hume had a lot to say about the cosmological argument and he had some critiques about it as well. David Hume spoke his peace on the argument and he also had some critiques about it. He questioned how is it really possible to make guesses on how the world works and what is causing things to happen. He says that it is really not possible to change ones mind on their philosophy such as Aquinas did in this argument. He said that one cannot say that there are certain causes for why things happen, then turn around and say that the universe we live in has a main cause. This was just one of the main critiques of this argument. Along with the past two arguments, there is another argument that deals with God’s …show more content…
This argument is also known as the Teleological Argument. Some may ask what does teleological mean? Teleology is the study of trying to explain the purpose of why things happen, It is when people are studying something and they want to find the end to something or what exactly the purpose is. What this argument is trying to prove is that there is a God and there has been evidence to prove so. An example of how this argument works is the analogy with the pocket watch. This analogy is trying to explain that everything had to come from somewhere. Like this pocket watch example, it did not just appear there had to be a creator of it, some person had to throw something together and call this a pocket watch. The universe is just like this pocket watch in almost every single way. It is a very intricate pat of our universe. The universe is a very intricate part of our lives. Since they are both intricate things the universe had to have been produced by a very smart being. God is the one being that is the most powerful and, perfect, and smart being that could get the job done. Since all of this is true there must be a god and he continues to exist in our universe. The point here is that we did not just appear, so the explanation is, that God did create us. Another analogy that is popular amongst philosophers is simply this, x has attributes a,b,c, and d. Y has attributes a,b,and c. Therefore Y has d
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Hambourger’s argument from design argues for the existence of god based on the perceived evidence of deliberate design in the world/universe. To further elaborate on the concepts he uses, Hambourger uses three main concepts; determinism, chance, and mere hap. Hambourger’s argument from design claims that though many things occur by chance, there are some things which we cannot simply accept to have happened by chance, and must therefore have some common explanation in the causal chain of events connecting the two events. For instance the universe is created by many states of affairs coming together. If some slight changes had occurred, the end result could have been vastly different than it currently is.
Megan Castro Professor Jason Southworth PHI 2010 January 25, 2016 Paper #1: Paley In William Paley 's The Teleological Argument, Paley concludes that God exists-or rather a "watchmaker", i.e. a designer of the universe, exists. Paley presents his argument with the over-stretching of the analogy that the existence of such an intricate design that is a watch, has a great purpose, as opposed to a stone that is of no use, and serves as proof of a watchmaker. Paley uses the example of a watch to explain and conclude that the universe is just the same. The intricate design that is the universe has a great purpose and serves as proof of a universe maker, i.e. God, which further concludes that God exists.
The philosopher William Paley discussed the existence of God in the so called the teleological argument. The teleological argument is also known as Intelligent Design, or the argument from design. In order to explain the existence of God, William Paley gave us what is known as an argument by analogy. This form of inductive argument invites us to consider a particular state of affairs. For instance, let us set two situations; situation A for which we are already likely to have certain beliefs, and then likens it to situation B, with which we are less familiar.
Philosopher David Hume’s argument against William Paley’s addresses the most common criticism in why Paley is wrong. Hume’s points out two major flaws in Paley’s argument that there is a creator of the universe. The first argument is the lack of evidence, in which he states that the existence of such a creator can only be proved through the a pattern of observation, which there is no pattern for. This addresses how without any form of pattern through observation that it is difficult to make a correlation between the universe and its designer (Speaks). Secondly he argumes that there are limitations to the design argument that Paley does not address.
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.
sense for him to be the reason we are born to then die leaving a question mark to our existence and the world. God exists because there can be none greater that can be thought. The ontological argument begins with the claim that God, by definition, is infinitely great. Thus, no entity can surpass God’s greatness. One of the many famous arguments proving God’s existence by a seventeenth-century famed philosopher Anselm.
It basically just throws God in without even talking about him. The argument does a great job at showing that there is a creator, but does nothing to explain about God. Once you believe that there is a designer then it opens up many doors by diving into the topic of God and maybe doing research. What makes more sense to believe in God is actually trying to learn about God. If you learn about the Judeo-Christian God, you’ll find out that he wants to be known.
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
Of the three main styles of arguments for the existence of God – the cosmological, the teleological, and the ontological – the teleological is probably the second strongest of these arguments. The teleological argument is also the only one of these arguments that reasons to its conclusion inductively. This means that, unlike the cosmological and ontological arguments, the acceptance of the premises of the teleological argument does not commit you to the acceptance of its conclusion. It only commits you to a judgement about the probability of the conclusion. The style of reasoning typically adopted by this method is one that starts from a posteriori observations about our reality, and then reasons a priori – typically through analogy – to the
In this essay, from what I have read about the Teleological Argument for God’s existence I will explain the Teleological Argument and show that the world is not like
So the first cause argument proves that God does not exist assuming the first cause argument is sound then there must be some other cause because it is not God. In summary the notion of omnipotent is a miss-name because it implies the potency, power, causality when in fact all that it does is imply logical entailment, it implies that if it wills something you can deduce from the statement that something exists, you do not need a causal step, it is a logical deduction and therefore the first cause argument argues from causes in the world
As I become older, my doubts become larger, I started to question the existence of God and I had convinced myself that God does not really exist. Before I start my points in this argument, let me introduce myself to you. I am neither an atheist nor a Catholic, but a Born Again Christian. I have a religion, but at the same time doubt the existence of God. I do not totally refute the idea of God in our lives, but I really wonder if He exists and by the use of reasoning and evidences, I will present to you my stand about His existence.
Title: Critical evaluation of existence of god Name: Lokesh Singh Roll No. : 13110054 Word Count: 1010 Critical evaluation of existence of god There are many theories and explanations on the concept of god. God is a word which has different meanings for different persons, for example, for an atheist god is just an idea or concept which is evolved by time. But for others this is far greater than that. Many philosophers thought about the definition of god. St. Anselm is the one of the great philosopher who clarified the definition of god and gave an argument about existence of god.
The debate of the existence of God has always been a controversial topic and has been going on for centuries. Till this day it is still a debate. We have people who strongly believe in God and others who questions his existence. Those who have strong faith will try to convince everyone who does not believe in God that he exits. They will try to come up with arguments to show he is real and good.
We can explain the origin of the universe and the reason why it is like this if we believe in god. Existence of being greater than any of us and the rules for over all creation. It is not necessary for physical existence of god. We can say that god exists by thinking about god. As we know that for sided god triangle triangle is impossible, in the same manner non-existence of god is also impossible.