Such proofs include teleological and ontological. A proof is an unquestionable, factual statement that directs an argument to the final product and is based on a level of scientific factualness. The existence of the world is no guarantee for believing in the existence of a certain being (God). The cosmological and design only offer points and arguments towards the existence of God, but the
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.
People who follow the divine command theory believe that God is the creator of all things, therefore, he must also be the creator of morally right and wrong acts. With God at the basis of this ethical theory it is more often, than not, that people who are religious believe in this theory more than those who are not. This is because people who do not believe in God or the
Strongly believing in your religion versus accepting the actual truth is a real testament of a religious person’s faith. While one might want to keep their strong beliefs in their religion and not go against it, testable theories and results from science say otherwise. In Stanley Kramers film Inherit the Wind, the ongoing battle of science versus religion continues. Along with several other problems, Kramers film helped me to formulate three questions. Can myth and superstition be tested?
The bible can be interpreted differently with eisegetical and exegetical approaches. 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.
Blaise Pascal adopts a one of a kind strategy in noting the endless question of God 's presence. Rather than belligerence for or against His reality like all those before him, Pascal strays from the generally accepted way to go and measures the merits against the inconveniences of the decision to accept. His contention, be that as it may, is jumbling, and welcomes the question; can faith in God really be diminished to a bet? Moreover, does this talk on confidence in God fit a bet 's status? Utilizing the thought of interminability for instance, Pascal reminds his gathering of people that there exist thoughts which are outside human ability to understand; however this does not deny their reality.
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.
The one weakness of Anslem argument is that he didn 't give enough evidences for God existence in reality. Another weakness posed by St Aquinas, as Anselm states God is "that which nothing greater can be conceived" then to understand God in this way is to be equal to him, which Anselm is human and cannot be equal to God. The one strength of Aquinas argument: Aquinas was influential philosopher concerning the different people who have different concepts of God, and how they could understand and accept his argument. Aquinas also presented five ways as evidences to argue the existence of God. One of the weaknesses of the Aquinas argument is that Aquinas contradicts himself when he rejects the possibility that the universe is unlimited.
Before I start my points in this argument, let me introduce myself to you. I am neither an atheist nor a Catholic, but a Born Again Christian. I have a religion, but at the same time doubt the existence of God. I do not totally refute the idea of God in our lives, but I really wonder if He exists and by the use of reasoning and evidences, I will present to you my stand about His existence. I will start my points in this argument by, first, opposing the evidences and reasons why we should believe that God exists and second, by pointing one of many reasons why we should believe that God does not exist.
the cosmological argument seems to be successful in both its first and second stages that the cosmos exists and it has a first cause. Its third point the first cause is God is more contentious, but it is far from easy to decline. Aquinas ' appreciation of God is a practical one God is not just an appropriate thing that might or might not exist. God is existence in its accomplishment or completeness. accepting that our compassionate accessible us on to such an existence is a common aspiration for do we not all want to know a more perfect reality?
He says that it is really not possible to change ones mind on their philosophy such as Aquinas did in this argument. He said that one cannot say that there are certain causes for why things happen, then turn around and say that the universe we live in has a main cause. This was just one of the main critiques of this argument. Along with the past two arguments, there is another argument that deals with God’s
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. The cosmological argument looks to the world to prove God’s existence rather than pure definitions.
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.