As a counter argument it is faulty, and ultimately fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the traditional God exists and has an adequate reason for evil. In a court of law, the burden of proof falls onto the prosecution to prove their claim beyond a reasonable doubt while the defense counters their position by establishing some doubt. The prosecution can be seen as Craig as he claims the existence of a God, whereas Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheism only exists in relation to theism. Atheism is a response to theism but theism is an idea in itself, independent of atheism. In other words, without theism atheism would not exist, as such without a claim made by the Crown the defense is not needed.
One of the weaknesses of the Aquinas argument is that Aquinas contradicts himself when he rejects the possibility that the universe is unlimited. Then he argues that God has no end. It also states that everything is conditional, but God is unconditional. (Aquinas
If we think god is perfect and superior than everything we know then anything greater than god can’t be imagined. If we think god as not
In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, Mackie explains that evil is only a problem for those who believe in God. Mackie further says that God being omnipotent and wholly good while evil exists is contradictory. This raises questions about how could a wholly good being exist but also have evil around and why would it exist if God could allow evil to happen. Mackie then goes into explain solutions so that “omnipotence,” “wholly good,” and “evil” stop contradicting each other. Mackie says the only way to believe that evil exists, if you do believe that evil does in fact exist, is to either say God is not wholly good or not as omnipotent.
Is a God unable to suppress the evil or does he have no solution to problem of evil? The thesis posited by Mackie that evil exists and there is no God to stop the evil is still relevant to today. We still have wars, incurable diseases and struggles on this planet.
Now could Ockham’s Razor be placed against the arguments of those who believe or don’t believe in a higher being? The existence of God is something that philosophers and regular people question all the time. Two philosophers questioned the existence of God; Anslem and Aquinas. The Ontological Argument, or the argument of existence, was put out by Anslem. Anslem believed in the existence of a supreme being and proved that it was possible to believe in someone like that.
In no other subject is error more dangerous, inquiry more difficult, or the discovery of truth more rewarding—Augustine, De Trinitate The crown of all sciences is the metaphysics. The crown of the study of the metaphysics is the study of the supreme reality: God. It is an examination of Swinburne’s conditional claim about the existence of triune God: if theism is valid, then the functional trinity also is valid.
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 concept of pluralism for a christ-centered theist is, unsupported because in christianity there cannot be more than one reality true or valid at the same time. The concept of relativism for a christ-centered theist is, unsupported because there is a defined moral law based on God. The concept of exclusivity for a christ-centered theist is, supported because if you don 't believe than you wont get the benefits of believing. The concept of inclusivity for a christ-centered theist is, unsupported because God wont take nonbelievers into heaven.
Question Number 2: What are the strengths and weakness of using mystical experience to prove one’s belief in God? Answer: A person who has mystical experience claims himself to be in direct communication with God or other supernatural beings. The belief that one has about mystical experience is that the experience does not need to the arguments or reasoning to be believed.
that there exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or lesser evil. ”(Rowe 370) In that case, the theists counterargument is as solid as that of the atheists’. With the G.E. Moore shift, the theists are able to argue for God’s existence without denying the premise presented by the atheists.
It is either God adds nothing or he adds the wrong type of motivation. Q.How can God’s existence pose as an obstacle to morality? A.Would it be that God’s existence adds the wrong type of motivation?
An Ontological argument is an argument that concludes with accepting the existence of God, from evidence, which is supposed to originate from a source, other than, that of your senses or observation of the world. In other words you come to the conclusion from reason alone. They are formed from nothing but analytical, and necessary premises, to arrive at the conclusion that God exists. A cosmological argument uses a general outline of arguments that makes a conclusion from clear obvious facts about the world, to the existence of an all-knowing being, that is God. Among these original facts, are certain beings, or events in the world that are causally dependent or reliant on the premise, that the universe is depending in that it could have been other than what it is, or why there is something rather than nothing.
This is its biggest weakness, in order for it to succeed someone has to presuppose that God exists. Another weakness is based on whether or not existence is an actual property of something like its size, weight, or color. If existence isn’t considered a property then it fails, but if it is then it succeeds. Then there is the cosmological argument.