Ernest Nagel, however, maintains that not only are there no good reasons to believe that God exists (he criticizes all of the arguments), there is a good reason to believe that God does not exist. On p. 145, he says raises the difficulty ... " ... which arises from the simultaneous attribution of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence to the Deity. The difficulty is that of reconciling these attributes with the occurrence of evil on the world." We 're going to expand on this idea. We
He gave no evidence about the characteristics of the Judeo-Christian God and just basically said he proved God is real. Analogies like this do a good job at making you believe that there is a designer, but you have to do more to actually believe that the designer is God. To say right off the bat that you believed in God because of this analogy would not make much sense. If you tried to convince somebody that God was real you’re going to have to dive deeper into the conversation than this watch analogy. One of the reasons that lead me to believing in God is how complex we are.
JL Mackie was persuasive in his argument by showing that belief in an almighty God is not rational. He proves this by posing the problem of evil. According to JL Mackie, if God exists and is omniscient, omnipotent, and good then evil would not exist. However, evil exists in this world, sometimes in the form of undeserved suffering (diseases that affect humans, earthquakes, famines ...) and others perpetrated by man (murders, wars ...). If God exists and has the capability to be powerful, good, omniscient and omnipotent, why would he let evil be perpetrated?
Critical Analyses of St. Anselm’s argument for the Existence of God and Douglas Gasking’s argument for the Non-Existence of God. Arguments against St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God St. Anselm begins with a definition of God, argues that an existent God is superior to a non-existent God and concludes that God must exist in reality, for his non-existence would contradict the definition of God itself. The argument does not seem plausible to an unbiased person, even at the very first reading. It seems as if not all aspects of the question under scrutiny have been considered. The basic assumption, on which the entire argument stands, that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined can seem doubtful to a person who doubts the existence of God, for if one doubts that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived, then he may also be skeptical if any person has thoughts about the same being, whose existence itself is doubtful.
Its all about beliefs if you ask me I would say that we do live in a matrix and are hook up into an experience machine, for me this would be God’s creation. We can not prove this is true but we also can not prove it is not. We think that what we perceive is real, because we touch, see, smell, hear or and taste it. But this are only signs that our brain gives us. What if nothing is real and it is all an illusion?
Dawkins replied to Lennox on his accusation that the principles of going from simple to complex is the belief of the atheist. By saying that if things were to go from simple to complex they would need explaining why. Lennox says that it makes a lot more sense to believe, that there is an eternal Logos and that the universe and its laws is derivative including the human mind form the Logos, it makes perfectly sense. More sense than to accept that the universe is just a simple fact. Dawkins replies that it makes a hell of a lot more sense to start with something simpler than to start with something more complex.
Freud’s perspective is people projecting father figure on the “God”. Obviously his theory seems constructed specifically to account for those theistic religion, the nontheistic religion does not suitable for
Many of Hume’s objections to the argument may be brushed off by those who are blindly religious and take offense, but many, from the same pool of objections, are simply logical and commonsensical, while some are too rigid. This a posteriori argument for design comes from the desire to make a second case for God. The first was the ontological argument, or cosmological argument, which attempts to use pure reason to
As in Genesis, “God created mankind in his image”(Genesis 1:27). Humans, though having been made in God’s image, are still the replica that never quite fulfills the true form of the thing it aims to reproduce. According to God, humans may be made to look like him, but this does not necessarily mean we are made to function on the same level as him. However, the imperfect recreation of God seen in humans was done purposefully to create a clear separation between what is God and what is human. If humans were made to the exact specifications of what God is, no longer would the
Nestorianism, named after Nestorius, was built on the denial that Jesus was fully God and fully human at the same time; his explanation was something like a split personality between the human and the divine nature. The two natures could cannot coexist at the same time, however, they can switch back and forth; although Jesus has both natures inside on him, they could not both at the same time. Eutychianism was named after Eutyches, a man who opposed Nestorianism, who believed that Jesus’ divinity and human nature combined to create a new, third thing. He taught, “Christ’s humanity was so united with his divinity that it was not the same as ours” (Quash and Ward, 41). If Jesus was not able to be both man and God at the same time, he would not have the ability to save us from our sins.
I disagree with Paley because much of the reasoning 's he gives to his arguments are either false or can easily be refuted. I also disagree with Paley because even though he does follow through to his conclusion, the premises of illogically and indirectly saying "because I say so", when he cannot find a logical answer, is not a valid argument. Much of Paley 's argument to prove the existence of a creator of the universe, or God, ignores many counter-arguments. When Paley begins to explain there being a purpose and function of the watch, which is clearly to tell time, he is also not able to identify as to what the exact purpose and function of the universe is. Paley leaves this issue with the renowned “because I said so”, leaving readers to feel as though they have no choice but to agree.
that men always freely choose what is right?” (McCloskey, 1968). Atheist side with McCloskey’s view that the individuals who put value in the choices of man controversy point to people making poor utilization of their free will. As indicated by Evans and Manis, the subsequent malevolence is because of mans mischief, not of Gods. The fact of the matter is, no one person knows for certain why a cherishing, decent, supreme God would permit malevolence and misery to exist. McCloskey’s debates give a guard against the legitimacy of the issue of malice.
From this it is then reasonable to conclude that this causality was set in motion by a supreme being which is God. This argument answers the question of whether or not there is a God far better than the intelligent design arguments of William Paley. For, Paley’s argument easily invalidated by modern science because it argues that simply because there are complex features that can’t be explained by nature and that there are further complex forms in the universe then there must be a God who created the
However he does not. For some, this is undeniable proof that God cannot exist or at least not in the way that he is traditionally characterised. One solution is to let go of one or more of the traits usually associated with God and accept that He may not be all good. Natural disasters are completely unpreventable by humans because they are an essential part of how our planet functions so surely an omnibenevolent God, who supposedly designed the universe, would not have made such suffering necessary. Furthermore, the God that is portrayed in the Bible does not appear to be omnibenevolent at all as seen in the line ‘I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all
Though he believes that the mind is not a physical entity like the body, he reasons that because the mind is connected to the body, physical actions conducted by the body are attributable to the mind (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#MinBodHisDua). It seems Plato is indicating that whatever is true for the physical world, must also be true for the mind and therefore, by his logic, jumps the ‘gap’ between physical and mental [437b]. This approach is again reminiscent of the ‘affirming the consequent’ fallacy and gives no real proof as to why the ‘gap’ could have logically been