On Being an Atheist The existence of God has been a huge issue for many years. The main McCloskey's issue with the idea of God is the presence of many evils in the world. McCloskey implies that the "proofs" of the existence of God cannot establish a factual evidence which supports the existing argument of whether there is God or not. Some proofs explaining the existence of God should be dismissed because they are not valid. Such proofs include teleological and ontological.
The Ontological Argument is defined as the argument that God, being described as the most great or perfect, must exist, since a God who exists is greater than a God who does not (Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100250688). It belongs to the Philosophy of Religions and not Theology; there is a difference between Philosophy of Religion and Theology, even though they both take God and religion as their subject. Theology starts with assuming that God exists and aids in figuring out what follows or it sometimes solves philosophical problems that might arise from the belief in God. Theology is slightly more strict and they have limits to their premises, one of those limits is not believing in God. Another
God 's existence has been a continuous debate certainly for centuries. The issue of God 's existence is debatable because of the different kind of controversies that can be raised from an "Atheist as being the non-believer of God" and a "Theist who is the believer of God". An atheist can raise different objections on the order of the universe by claiming that the science is a reason behind the perfection of the universe. In Aquinas 's fifth argument, he claims that the order of the universe cannot be explained by chance, but only by design and purpose. To explain this order of the universe he concludes that, there is an intelligent being whom we call "God".
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. The argument seems to “beg the question”. Moreover, St. Anselm’s idea of existence is not very clear. It is not very clear what a physical object is, what it means to say that a physical object exists and what it means to say that a non-physical object exists. St. Anselm’s argument is based on the superiority of an existent God over a non-existent God.
Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil. Mackie’s argument highlights the inconsistency that arises between the premises of God’s existence. Mackie proposes the problem of evil to be that “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; [God exists]; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, 1955, p.200). Mackie states these four propositions cannot coexist, therefore, if evil exists, God cannot and conversely, if God is real evil must be
As a result, ethics would be crumbling without foundation as good and evil is not justified and accounted for. Professor John Lennox clearly shows here that it is not possible for atheist to derive their ethics from anywhere else besides God, the absolute moral giver. The fact that we have a common set of morality across humankind is in itself evidence that we are moral beings made in the image of our
Two of the best known cosmological arguments came from Thomas Aquinas and Gottfried Leibniz. They both drew on the ancient Greeks as inspiration for their explanations of how the existence of the universe provides evidence for the existence of God. Aquinas, in his book ‘Summa Theologica’, first established the argument
According to the logical problem of evil, God is an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being. Yet, evil exist all around us. Since Mackie is an atheist, this is a contradiction he debates. How can a perfect God allow evil in the world? And how does free will influence evil?
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. 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.
247) considers two solutions proposed for Hume’s argument. He writes, “One way that is frequently used is to maintain that what is commonly called evil is only an illusion, or at worst only the ‘privation’ or absence of good.” Nagel disassembles this proposition, noting in any case the suffering and misery are real; thus, this argument is insensitive to human suffering. The second proposal is, “the things called evil are evil only because they are view in isolation; they are not evil when viewed in proper perspective and in relation to the rest of creation.” Nagel concludes, if this is true, what specifically is the greater good? It is not sufficient to state some great may come about because of