Have Atheist Proved There Is No God Summary

This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. ” I cannot agree with any of the aspects of process theology and the only thing I can agree with is its critics who claim process theology is non-Christian

It is evident evil exists but it is not clear whether God exists. The purpose of Mackie’s and Plantinga’s argument is to prove whether or not God exist based on the existence of evil. Mackie does not agree on the existence of God and uses philosophy to prove it. He believes that there is no rational evidence that

The infamous new Atheists have taken this form of argumentation and use it to argue for the merits of atheism over theism. This is a development that seems to be rooted in this new militant form of atheism, and goes something like this: If atheism is true, then I will have freedom and intellectual honesty, and it won’t matter if I’m not a Theist, because God doesn’t exist. If a good god does turn out to exist, he will forgive me. On the other hand if I’m a Christian, I must be sexually and morally constrained, and believe in a God I find to be morally abhorrent.

The third author; William Dever, argues that the occurrence in Israel history never occurred and that data do not support the existence of state Israel. He does argues of the explanation of “Israel existence and nature.” Dever believes that Bible is idealist, viewing what the elite wants you to believe and worship, thus creating a god. Oswalt defends the Bible history with a serious of question that will leave the reader to take a second look at what this book written by Dever, he completely destroy his theology on Israel

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?

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.

He says, “Enslavement is horribly atheistical.” meaning enslavement is unGodly, and that it is something that an atheist, who believes in no God, would believe is right. Garrison uses religious views to make his point clear. He states, “Abolitionism, which I advocate is as absolute as his throne.” He is saying that if you are a Christian, that abolitionism is

Is honesty the best policy even if the truth disturbs many people? Kurt Vonnegut bluntly relays his opinion on the war between science and religion and other controversial topics concerning life though his novel, Cat’s Cradle. Consequently, it was banned by the Ohio School Board in 1972 “without stating an official reason”(“Taboo Titles”). The debunking of the validity of religious and scientific beliefs, and the harsh truth embedded within his work has earned Vonnegut a spot on the controversial “Banned Books” list.

The crucible portrays injustice by how Danforth is not following court that is ruled by religion. Evidence that shows that it's injustice is when Reverend Hale asks Elizabeth "Do you know your commandments Elizabeth?"(Miller 496). Hale is asking her this to test

H.J. McCloskey’s article “On Being an Atheist” he argues the existence of God and we should abandoned all “proofs” of this idea. In approaching the question of God’s existence, we cannot prove God or that other things exist. Proof is a certainty and without a shadow of doubt. However, it is possible I could be wrong, but I don’t believe I am. The best explanation of God’s existence is seen in certain effects we see in the universe such as science.

For this disputation, I had the pleasure of arguing against the topic of be it resolved that you can convince a non-believer to affirm the existence of God using philosophical arguments. As the opposing side, Sarah and I counter argued the following: the argument from motion, the ontological argument, Pascal’s Wager, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument. The argument from motion argues that it is only possible to experience that which exists, and people experience God, therefore God must exist; however it can be counter argued that since faith cannot be demonstrated or experienced, as it is unseen, God cannot exist.

Richard Dawkins strongly believes that religion is a distraction to science and its facts. Darwin believes that religion is wrong and doesn't show how the universe is really works. In The Unbelievers Documentary, Richard Dawkins participated in many interviews where he gave his reasons upon his opinion on religion and the truth of what it is encouraging or in other words persuading people think what is true. During the film where Dawkins had a interview with Lawrence krauss, Krauss asked dawkins , would he explain science or destroy religion.

Response to “On Being an Atheist” Ida Hart PHIL 201 – B30 LUO Dr. David Beck McCloskey’s article, “On Being an Atheist” contains arguments that he uses to explain Atheism, the non-existence of God. Using the claims made by theists and attempting to taint the character and nature of the Christian God, he points out what he calls several defects of the arguments. In his introduction he offers a brief reminder to fellow atheist stating the grounds and the inadequacies of these grounds for theism. He later calls them “proofs”, alleging that the proofs do not provide adequate justification for believing that God exists. This only proves that he is among the many that choose to use the arguments in the wrong way.

All of the philosophers that we've studied so far have made some valid arguments concerning the existence, or non-existence of God. If I had to be swayed by an opinion for God's existence, or non-existence it would have to be by William Paley's argument. Paley's analogy is strong because of his metaphor of the watch to explain the universe and the existence of an intelligent designer. The weak part of this analogy is that the watchmaker as evidence can be produced in the physical form; the universe maker as evidence cannot be produced in physical form.

The question of god’s existence has been at the forefront of people’s minds for the majority of known history. The reasons this question arises varies from person to person, but holds in common the human craving for knowledge. Because of this there have been many proofs which set out to prove god’s existence of which the most accessible is the ontological argument for the existence of god. The aim is to envision a god which depends on nothing else but itself for existence. The ontological argument seeks to move from the definition of god to the actualization of god’s being.