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.
They may say that his accusations are harsh and that he is himself irrational in his beliefs. They may say that it is wrong to ignore ancient texts since they are the rational explanation behind their faith. However, once again Harris is not calling the people of faith necessarily the delusional ones, he is referring to the absence of rationality behind their beliefs. Also, Harris does not appear to be preaching his own spiritual beliefs in the first chapters of the book, his goal seem to be to open the eyes of his readers to what is not being said about religion. As to the reference of ancient texts, Harris is arguing that people choose to be blind to the flaws in these writings, some have not read them completely or blindly rely on the word of authority such as a priest.
This is a mystery because it is not concrete and is incalculable. The logic behind untouchable facts is explained as the Principle, “Suppose it's an untouchable fact that p. And suppose also that the following conditional (if-then) statement expresses an untouchable fact: IF p is an untouchable fact, and if if p, then q is an untouchable fact, then q is an untouchable fact” (274-275). He argues that compatibilists hide their mystery under the rug but everyone, including compatibilists themselves, know it is there which, for
So to my wonder, would there be philosophical thinking without free will? Some philosophers, to my surprise, do believe free will is an illusion. Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument, argues that nothing can be causa sui or that nothing can be the cause of itself (On Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument, Pg. 1). Causa sui states that “we can never be ultimately morally responsible for our actions” (Your Move: The Maze of Free Will, Pg.1).
And yet, the science and reason that brought us this invention are not enough to force humanity to accept it in all facets of life. Something potentially responsible for this phenomenon is the Backfire Effect. David McRaney describes the Backfire Effect with great accuracy in his article “The Backfire Effect”: “coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead” (1). This unbreakable resolve for maintaining beliefs in contradiction to logic prevents us from seeing truth effectively.
However, this is not seen as a solid basis upon which absolute doubt, required by Descartes, can be built. Ironically, his skepticism offers such that I am in a state of doubt, I will also have doubt about the possibility that there could even be a deceiving being. As such, my doubt about the possibility of such a being serves to undermine the greater doubt that is supposed to be generated by this being. In order for the evil demon to generate such a degree of doubt it must be possible for it to exist. However, Descartes does not provide enough proof for his claim of its possibility.
Galen Strawson argues in his work, The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility, the theory that true moral responsibility is impossible. This theory is accurate whether determinism is true or false. Strawson describes this argument as the Basic Argument. He claims "nothing can be causa sui- nothing can be the cause of itself" (212). Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility.
Idealism and Realism are two strongly opposed views of foreign policy. At the core of this opposition is the issue of power and security in politics. Realism establishes a separation between politics and ethics in order to understand and comprehend international events. Realists don’t oppose morality to politics, nor power to law, but rather oppose the utopian peaceful society to the nature of society. Realists are attuned to the idea that the international system is anarchic and that serious threats emerge all the time, requiring states to secure resources for survival.
In “Promising to Try”, Jason D’Cruz and Justin Kalef claim that though we take no comfort in the idea of ‘promising to try’, all one is capable of doing is just that and anything more would be deemed irresponsible. D’Cruz and Kalef theorize that, “... promising to try can genuinely restrict a promise in a way that is responsible and morally significant” due to uncontrollable factors that one might face externally and internally. They briefly reference Marusic, who is against the idea of promising to try and mention that an evidentialist would be faced with a dilemma of promising and not promising where there is some evidential uncertainty of not following through with a promise. Responsible promisers are keenly aware of the implications of promising to do something under conditions that might cause one to not follow through with their promise. In circumstances like these, there are reasons why promising to try would be significant.
McCloskey (1968) suggests that the arguments given are why theists believe in God but states that these arguments do not support a belief in God (p. 65). We cannot “prove” with absolute certainty that God exists. God, and His sovereignty are far greater than what our minds could ever comprehend. The thought that God is the best explanation for life and our being is important in maintaining the belief that God does exist. Just because there is no “absolute proof,” does not mean that God does not exist.
It seems like a reasonable claim not to accept anything without sufficient evidence but according to Inwagen, doing so can lead to a problem in which no one will have enough evidence to justify anything that they believe in. Sufficient evidence can either be objective evidence that will convince any rational person to take a certain side or position, or it can be evidence that is intuitive and incommunicable. How could it be that, for example, two intelligent and well informed philosophers are able to disagree with each other on the same subject while being aware of and understanding his or her opponent 's argument but yet failing to agree with it? Both are provided with the same amount of objective evidence for each position but each philosopher
But he notes that this need not convince anyone that there is no reason for believing in God:the theologian can, if he wishes, accept this criticism. He can admit that no rational proof of God’s existence is possible. And he can still retain all that is essential to his position, by holding that God’s existence is known in some other, non-rational way.”Mackie’s aim is to show that philosophy is not only capable of criticizing arguments for God’s existence, but also showing that God does not exist, thus closing off the position of the theologian
Rowe mentions G.E. Moore theory as “The G.E. Moore’s Shift”, which ignore the classical philosophy made from skeptical philosophers that there is no evidence that supports the existence of an object. Moore uses a different strategy that questions that the existence of an object, which in such cases he used as an example a pencil. Moore makes two claims that contradict each other.
He said that the reason he dose not believe in the Principle of Sufficient Reason is because the argument that Aquinas made was a failure. Hume had a lot to say about the cosmological argument and he had some critiques about it as well. David Hume spoke his peace on the argument and he also had some critiques about it. He questioned how is it really possible to make guesses on how the world works and what is causing things to happen. He says that it is really not possible to change ones mind on their philosophy such as Aquinas did in this argument.
For the objections only prove that it is difficult to assume God’s non-existence. In that argument, theists are not able to refute the argument of the atheists they are merely able to evade it. For an evasion of an argument will never make for a valid argument.