Response To Atheism

sense for him to be the reason we are born to then die leaving a question mark to our existence and the world.

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

According to Samuel Clark’s argument, things exist the way they are in order to show the existence of God. All things need an explanation for their existence according to Aristotle. For instance, why the earth is spherical, why different places experience different climatic patters, why different geographical areas have different time zones and why do creatures that are in found in different places have features that enable them survive in such conditions. These considerations lead to a belief that there must be a cause for the universe (Rowe 67). At the same time, this cause needs to be extremely perfect for the universe to align itself in its current manner. Something has to come from something. This is because nothing produces nothing; hence

This is exactly the goal that the advocates of Intelligent Design aspired to achieve. According to the Center of Science and Culture, a group in support of intelligent design, “the theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the apparent design in nature ... is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection” (“What is Intelligent Design?”). Stephen C. Meyer, the program director of the center, argues that intelligent design is true because biological systems, such as flagella of bacterial cells, are “irreducibly complex.” He claims that evolution, which depends on “tiny incremental mutations,” could not have shaped the motor which cannot function with even one in thirty protein parts lacking (“Not by chance”). However, his argument does not qualify as a scientific evidence; it is merely an impression. The theory of evolution allows a seemingly useless gene to survive over generations if it does not endanger the survival of organisms containing it, during which it may gradually become significant. Hence, the argument of irreducible complexity, which is the core argument of intelligent design, does not threaten the validity of the theory of evolution. In the end, creationists have failed

In this paper, I will begin by stating the Problem of Evil. Following this I will include two objections to the argument and why I find the argument to not be convincing. The Problem of Evil is an argument concerning the existence of God and why God cannot exist because of the presence of evil in the world. The argument begins by saying that God is both all-powerful and wholly good, and that evil exists in the world. However, these statements contradict each other, so all three cannot be true. The next statement is that there are no limits that can be placed on an all-powerful thing. Also, a wholly good being will eliminate evil as much as possible. If these two statements are true then an all-powerful, wholly good being is able to eliminate all evil in the world.

If the designer is intelligent, why does our universe have so much chaos such as the destructive meteor volcanoes, and earthquakes? Paley believes the following possible objections are incompetent to challenge his analogical argument. Paley’s response to my main argument would be, just because we don't know who the designer might be, it doesn't mean there is not a creator. We never knew the designer capable of making the universe or we do not know how the work was accomplished. I would say if the parts of the universe do not work perfectly; then the designer is neither intelligent nor evident. However, Paley’s response will be; it is not necessary to show that something is perfect in order to show that there is a design present. I will also state we have no clue who the artist capable of making the universe and we do not know how the work was accomplished, Paley's response; would be because we don't know who the designer might be, it is it not fair to simply rule out that there is not one. Some parts of the universe seem to have no task and some areas were not created probably. In my opinion, Paley's will respond by saying, just because we do not know the task of those parts does not indicate that there is no function. The universe is only one possible form of many possible combinations and so is a chance event. One knows nothing at all about the foundation of the universe. Paley’s response; Therefore, by seeing the parts of the

“The Problem of Evil” is simply the question, why does God allow evil to happen? God is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, and rational, therefore why does evil exist? There is either no God or he is not what we think he is, since evil could be prevented by him with no risk. Atheists and anti-theodicist see a problem with the idea that God could prevent evil. They believe that because God is so powerful and perfect, that he would not allow such immoral actions to be done. On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it.

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. At the beginning of the article, Mackie states that the initial issue with God’s existence is that, “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, Paragraph 3). If god is such a pure and good being, then he should be able to combat all evil.

What would life be without evil in the world? Many optimists believe there is an inherent goodness gifted to all people at birth and fundamentally embedded in us that dictates our actions, but the reality is exactly the contrary. People are evil, not because of a desire or choice but out of absolute necessity on account of none of the things we enjoy today would be available or even invented without some evil. Evil, within limitations and with restrictions, is productive for a group of people. Society, with all its art, culture, music, and glory, was created because there was evil present and now works to destroy its very creator through police departments and social initiatives.

The problem of evil questions how to reconcile the existence of evil with a God whom is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If this were true, God would know about evil, would be able to do something, and would want to do something. Yet there is still evil today. The logical problem of evil attempts to prove that the existence of any evil contradicts the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God. If this God exists, then evil does not. However, evil does exist. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist. The evidential problem of evil states that since evil does exists, evidence alone is incompatible with a perfect God, and thus negates the possibility of God 's existence. There exist

William Paley’s argument from design starts off with a man seeing a watch on the side of the road. The argument is whether or not someone designed the watch, or if the watch randomly just showed up there itself by random chance. He makes an analogy of watches and humans. He says that since there is a designer that made the watch, there must be a designer that made us humans. The reason that he compares watches to humans is that is because they are both complex and have parts that work very well together. He says that the designer for humans is God. I think the analogy does a great job of showing that humans have a designer, but I disagree with the argument that it shows that God created us.

I have to admit that Zimmerman’s talk was hard at times for me to comprehend. I would love feedback if I understood his divine argument wrong, because I have had a few discussions about it with my peers and many took away different views from his final argument for a divine being, and in this paper I will explain how I understood his final argument.

In “Argument from Design”, William Paley presents a teleological argument for the existence of a powerful and an intelligent designer who created the universe. Paley is trying to prove God’s existence by creating an analogy between the watch and the living organisms. Paley claims that God’s existence depends on the world’s complex structure, and purpose will be detailed in this paper and prove how his argument was crucial in making people understand the very presence or belief in God (Mcgrath 21).

One might object to the Problem of Evil by giving a theodicy. A theodicy is basically a justification that explains why God allows evil things to happen even though he is all-PGK. In addition, a theodicy is on the “God is all-PGK” side because it might prove that evil is needed in this world in intention of God, and evil is, of course, under control of God. One theodicy is free will. Free will is a gift from God. All creatures in this world have an ability to do whatever it is willing to do. As an illustration, a mother uses drugs, yells at her son every day, forces him to do what he does not want to, and also violently abuses him. One day, that boy kills his mother. That is murder, and that is evil. God might see that, but he let it happen due to two possibilities. First, killing his mother is what the boy needs to do to free his life, and God sees that as a solution for that boy. That is the boy’s free will. If God ever stops the son, there is no longer free will. Second, the mother needs to be removed out of this world because she is evil, and she is wrongful in treating her son. Here we can see that God intervenes to help the boy decide to stop the

In this argument we already assumed that there may be possibility that God exist and finally we reached where we started. So this argument does not give us the exact information about existence of God. There are many objections on this argument but still it is a powerful argument. In my opinion, this argument is not much satisfactory. It describes that existence is greater than imagination. That is right but here we are only imagining two situation one is just idea of God and another is idea plus reality. But how can we assume that God exists in reality even we don’t know about God’s existence. It seems just a logic which is self-contradictory. We can also apply this logic to other things, maybe this logic will not work. Let’s imagine that electricity is not available in a room, so fan, which is hanging there, is not working. Then we cannot say that fan is not working because electricity is not available. There may be some other problem with the fan. So reverse is not always true. So this argument is ambiguous.