Cosmological Essay 'Does God Exist?'

existentialism just is this bygone cultural

Here, it seems to me that Descartes is implying the second half of the Cartesian circle, that God existence forces him to think that is distinctly and clearly

Dostoyevsky uses two contrasting chapters to argue against atheistic existentialism. The Grand Inquisitor is a story written by Ivan Karamazov. In the story, Jesus visits the Spanish Inquisition, but the religious leaders do not want Him there. They claim that they already have freedom, and that His return will take the freedom away. The chapter reveals Ivan’s belief that the church is just a cult which thrives off of the weak, and it explains how incredibly boring a sinless world would

Descartes’ metaphysics are difficult in that they are over lapped. To, satisfactorily, answer the question: Does Descartes correctly respond to the problem of how can mind and matter interact as different substances? We must capture a large breadth of Descartes arguments beginning with his famous “I think, therefore I am”. For the simplicity of the paper, I shall assume that Descartes argument(s) have been sound all the way into his description of mind and matter. It would seem impossible to respond to the question posed if it cannot even be said that Descartes satisfactorily distinguishes mind and matter as different substances.

Existentialism Many people try to understand the meaning of life and whether there is a spiritual force behind it. This is what is known as absurdity since eventually, the person will not have any meaning of existence. Some philosophers tried to find out about existence, for instance, Jean-Paul Sartre, who does not believe in a God and that a person first live then discovers more about himself and the world (Booker, 2015 pg. 282). Albert Camus is another philosopher who wondered whether there is a God or not and what man was supposed to believe to protect him from bad faith. But each person has some range of individualism hence believes as he or she chooses just like Friedrich Nietzsche, who believed that God is dead and that man 's existence is meaningless, and life bears no meaning (Gillespie, 2015 pg. 86).

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".

This part of the argument I would agree with the most, as when you try to prove that something indescribable exists you will fail as it cannot be described and instead are required to have faith. Let me explain what I mean: The whole purpose of these arguments is to prove that an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God exists, and according to the Judeo-Christian belief this God is also indescribable. Something that cannot be described cannot be fully proven to exists; therefore, in order to believe that God exists it will take a ‘leap of faith.’ The greatest strength of this argument is also its greatest weakness, as this leap of faith cannot without a shadow of a doubt prove that God

Nihilistic philosophers deny any basis of objective truth thus, any ground of law to checkmate human actions are condemned. For them there is no rational justification for moral principles, and as such, they do not encourage any form of loyalty to norms. Radical nihilism argues for the conviction of the absolute un-tenability of existence when it comes to the highest value one can recognise; plus the realization that we lack the least right to posit “a beyond, or an in-itself” of things that might be divine or morality

Plantinga briefly suggests the possibility of free non-human beings, such as fallen angels or evil spirits, bearing responsibility for natural evil. From this, he appears to attribute natural evil to moral actors that humans are unaware of. One might conclude that Plantinga claims all evil is inevitably moral in nature, just that it is not in the power of humans to know better. Hence, the existence of natural evil is a mere matter of

The logical form of the problem pertains to the view that “the existence of evil in our world is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God.” This form is demonstrated by the statement, “An omnipotent, omniscient, good being will prevent the occurrence of any evil whatever.” In other words, an existence of a God who has these qualities of being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent is logically inconsistent to the thought that evil exist granting these qualities He possess. On the other hand, the evidential form of the problem of evil refers to the view that “the variety and profusion of evil in our world, although not logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God provides, nevertheless, rational support for Atheism, for the belief that the theistic God does not exist.” This form of problem is basically about the suffering that people experiences in the world which can be considered evil for serving no purpose at all.

The atheists seek to exploit the existence of human suffering in the face of an Omni-benevolent God as a contradiction, and since human suffering exists then God must not exist. Indeed, this is a challenging subject and Brother Warren devoted this book to

From this it is then reasonable to conclude that this causality was set in motion by a supreme being which is God. This argument answers the question of whether or not there is a God far better than the intelligent design arguments of William Paley. For, Paley’s argument easily invalidated by modern science because it argues that simply because there are complex features that can’t be explained by nature and that there are further complex forms in the universe then there must be a God who created the

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.

The unfriendly atheist displays exclusivism about reason since the atheist states that no one is rationally justified in believing that the theistic God exists, while the friendly atheist displays inclusivism about reason since the atheist accepts that some theists are justified in believing in God, even if that God doesn 't exist. The author is more inclined to the friendly atheist and inclusivism about reason since it has a great appeal to other people because of its sympathetic approach to religion and

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.