McCloskey makes a statement that in order, “to get proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design or purpose are needed” (McCloskey, 1968). He holds his standard of indisputability to a high claim. In order for McCloskey to ask a theist for indisputable evidence of the existence of a Creator, I believe that there must be evidence from his own theory that is indisputable. This reminds me of a class I had in community college that was about Critical Thinking. My professor told me that I could no argue my religious foundation because it was based off of opinion and not known fact. Well, at that point, what would be fact? Our argument was on morality and this class has taken us through the ideas of where morality comes from without a religious …show more content…
This is such a twisted thought to me that has never crossed my mind before. Even though the tough momemnts in my life of doubting a God, and even hating Him, I never felt comfort in the idea of no God. McCloskey’s last argument addresses the unxpected what he calls “acts of God.” Since this tragity happened, GOd must be resonible. My heart truley does break for that bold statement that McCloskey makes, for he truley does not fully understand a life without God. In the article, “The Absurdity of Life without God”, William Craig argues that if there really is no God, life would have no purpose. I loved this article so much I printed it out and have it kept in my office for other people to read. When one truley pieces the story of God together, it really is the best explnation for the universe. It is just not plausable that the expanision of the universe caused a “big bang” of all life, matter, in the perfect peice. The earth is the perfect distance from the sun so that we don’t burn up, and is perfect distance close so we don’t freeze. It does not make sense that we have evolved from chimps, or even the idea of one common ansestor. How did one ansector create all of these different organisms that we have today? We all live, we all die. We are born one minute and are deceased the next. There is no meaning to life, just chance. If we really all have volved from pond scum, what is the point of being alive? WHy would I even worry about being moral? WHy do we have laws about not murdering if it really does not matter? Evolunionists, naturlalists, atheists all might create their own meaning of their life, but there is no constant basis for their consclusion. Life without God is no significance at all. Our morals would not matter, heros wouldn’t make a difference and a selfish life should be persued. We are stepping closer and closer with that mentality in this culture anymore. It is all
Callarman’s argument is that Chris McCandless made a lot of mistakes because he was arrogant and that he had no business going into Alaska with his Romantic silliness and he says that he was just crazy. I disagree with Callarman’s argument because I think that Chris McCandless (Alexander Supertramp) was not arrogant I think that he just wanted to learn new things. I also disagree because I think that Chris did have a reason to go to Alaska or else he would not have done it even if it just to go because he likes nature, and I don’t think that he was crazy at the beginning but I agree that he did start to get crazy when he was stuck in the wild on the bus. I don’t think that Chris is arrogant I think that he is just a guy who wants to learn new things about nature and just the world in general.
The argument that the Pleasantville School should require students to complete 40 hours of community service prior to graduation is built on some weak assumptions that fail to support the point and convince the reader. and it also misses some major points in discussing the issue in hand. First , the argument mentions that the number of teenage volunteers has declined, but it doesn`t investigate the reasons that made teenagers refuse the community services. it would be better for the writer to tell us what caused the problem in order to know what would the best solution to it be.
On the viewpoints of legalization on the Baker Institute website, Kevin A. Sabet argues against the legalization of marijuana. Throughout this argument, Sabet brings up opposing facts on the subject and then refutes them. He also uses a logos appeal strategy by using statistics and facts to help back up his views. For instance, in his first view point about the harm of marijuana usage he states, “1 in 10 people who try marijuana will become addicted to it, developing a dependence that produces withdrawal, cravings, etc. If marijuana use starts in adolescence, the chances of addiction are 1 in 6.”(Sabet:
During the mid 1800s, the pro-slavery argument was at its strongest. The Proslavery Argument by Boundless, an online textbook, discusses the famous Mudsill Speech of James Henry Hammond which stated that the pro-slavery political argument, an ideology that defended a class-sensitive view of American antebellum society. He believed that many past societies carried the burden of the existence of a class of landless poor. Continually, other southern pro-slavery theorists felt that this class of landless poor was “inherently transient and easily manipulated, and as such often destabilized society as a whole” (Boundless). Thus, the greatest threat to democracy was seen as coming from “class warfare that destabilized a nation's economy, society and
Kevin t. Keith uses quite a bit of personal anecdotes which unlike his questionable facts helps his argument. He uses personal anecdotes as a way to show his emotional connection and view on the topic. For example when he states “it feels like their family member has been ‘sacrificed’(because of course they do not agree that the treatment would be ‘futile’).” he seems to know what it's like being a family member of a patient whose treatment was futile. It shows a personal knowledge on the subject of futile treatment well.the use of personal anecdotes increases the validity of his credibility as well as his argument as a
In the argument from design, the world must have been created by an intelligent being. It could not have been created otherwise. Paley argues this when he analyzes the existence of world, corresponding with god’s purpose in its existence. He claims that “there must have existed, at some time, or [an]other, an artificer or artificers who formed [the world] for the purpose which we find it actually
In the preceding argument we find that the president of Grove College argues that adopting coeducation to the all-female college will increase the number of applications and enrollments to the college. However, the director opposes this view by saying that being an all-female education upholds the identity of the college. While both arguments may seem valid at first glance, upon scrutiny we can find that they are poorly reasoned and based on several questionable assumptions. Hence, We need more information regarding the college to support both claims. To begin with, the president assumes that increase in the number of application and enrollments in other colleges after adopting coeducation will likely be the case in Grove College.
This work is appropriate to use in this essay because it shows that the belief in God, and even science, is mainly due to faith. Without faith, both science and God would not exist. Bloom, Paul. “Is God an Accident?” Fields of Reading: Motives for Writing.
“Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.” So says the infamous British atheist, Richard Dawkins in his 2006 bestseller, The God Delusion. As the most influential atheist since Madelyn Murray O’Hare, Dawkins argues that God does not exist and Christianity is a crude farce…because of the “evidence.” Dawkins goes on to audaciously spout that because of “available evidence and reasoning... it is possible to mount a serious historical case that Jesus never lived at all.”
If we die one’s life can end at the grave with no afterlife. Clearly having a World without God is not a world I would like to live in. Man cannot have life without meaning or purpose. McCloskey argument is fair and reasonable, he does raise concerns most people may. How can a divine God allow evil in the world?
Argument for the Existence of God: Teleological or Designer Argument In the Teleological argument for the existence of God, focuses on Paley’s idea that the world by observation exhibits order and purpose and there must be a divine intelligence, a supreme designer for a perceived purpose to occur (Pojmans, 118). Darwin and Hume each presented an objection on the Paley’s analogy and argument on the existence of God, based on the complexity in human artifacts and man-made objects (126) .The argument presented by William Paley’s Natural Theology where it demonstrates a well thought “watch” argument (119). The supporters of the design argument propose that by no chance did the universe and its structures arise, but there is an intelligent designer.
McCloskey claimed that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” At first glance of this statement I am understanding the statement as that something doesn’t allow us to come up with a belief or solution, which is silly. In the same thinking one could say that based on his arguments he is not allowed to assume there is no God. Nevertheless, based on the existence of a contingent being it points toward the existence of a necessary being because they require an ultimate cause. Beyond this, the cosmological argument may be limited.
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.
In this he questions the attributes of God that are traditionally used to describe him. He claims that there is a lack of foundational evidence to prove that God is not only the creator of the universe but is the All Mighty God that he is described as (Speaks). Rather than Hume arguing that Paley’s argument is false, he focuses heavily on if God even exists or if he is the higher figure that he is painted as. Another argument that can be used against Paley is the theory of the Big Bang Theory.
The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist.