The Teleolgical Argument Analysis

Overall, he decides that the Problem of Evil argument shows it is more logical to believe that God does

Many argue that these theodicies are flawed, and they reject God’s all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good nature by means of finding Him to be less than perfect. In my opinion, The Free Will Defense allows me to understand why evil exists in our world. Our free will is what creates the struggling of mankind, not God. Considering the fact that we are not perfect, it would be impossible for us to create a world that is both free and good. I trust God has a greater plan for us in which he permits evil to exist.

Reformed Epistemology is a school of thought regarding rationality of religious belief. The core of the thought is the idea that belief in god is a properly basic belief; and does not need to be derived from other truths for it to be reasonable. It is important to correctly stress what ‘basic’ truly means, a basic believe is one that is rationally held and yet not derived from other beliefs that one holds The Great Pumpkin Objection was put forward by Alvin Plantinga in 1983 and is the main criticism against Reformed Epistemology. The objection states that if belief in god is properly basic, then why cant anything at all be properly basic, like the belief that the Great Pumpkin returns every Halloween.

Critical Analyses of St. Anselm’s argument for the Existence of God and Douglas Gasking’s argument for the Non-Existence of God. Arguments against St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God St. Anselm begins with a definition of God, argues that an existent God is superior to a non-existent God and concludes that God must exist in reality, for his non-existence would contradict the definition of God itself. The argument does not seem plausible to an unbiased person, even at the very first reading. It seems as if not all aspects of the question under scrutiny have been considered.

Belief is not Decision Pascal’s Wager, the argument that an individual who believes in God’s existence is entitled to infinite gains. There are three objections against Pascal article, including “the wrong motivation”, “too many options” and “Belief not a decision”. Among these three reasonable objections, I believe that the strongest one is “Belief not a decision”, because everything needs a reason as people are born as rational creatures. Otherwise, people believe in the existence of God because they trust that God could bring benefits to them. For me, although the objection is reasonable, I still think the Pascal’s response is stronger.

1. How does Clark defend belief from Clifford? Clark defends against W.K. Clifford's claim that it is wrong to believe anything on the basis of inadequate evidence, and that belief in God without evidence or argument is nevertheless rational. He also concludes that theistic arguments are redundant to understanding God because God would not put the obstacle of difficult thinking between people and Himself. 2.

Galileo believes in the Bible and that God has supreme authority over the world, but he sees religion and science as two different things. It is not the purpose of the Bible to explain the physical world, it is there to save our souls. He makes three distinguishes: The Bible and Church have all matters of faith. , if any scientific finding if proven to be true but is against the teachings of the Bible, then we have not found the true meaning of the Bible, and anything not proven that is against the Bible must be

The Modal Ontological Argument by Alvin Plantinga uses modal logic using possibility and necessity to show that it is rational to believe in God. However, the argument is not a proof of the existence of a being who is a maximally great being as it’s not to prove or establish a conclusion but for it to be rational to accept the central premise and the conclusion (Oppy, Graham, "Ontological Arguments"). Premise one says it is possible that God exists. Possible, meaning he is Metaphysically possible as there are other reasons for Gods possibility than strictly logical and being that the Ontological argument is Metaphysical.

Even thought, he said God’s existence can’t be proven, yet he still said “God’s existence I mean that I propose to prove that the unknown, which exist is God” (page 421). He is believing in the existence of God, but just like he can’t prove it he decided to name it the unknown, but my question to him would be “why to make him unknown and not real?”. Finally,

He does address perfectly the criticism by endorsing a type of indirect voluntarism according to which, if we believe in God, we will eventually acquire this belief. His wager, has shown the importance of having faith in God for whatever reason and at whatever cost, he thinks, has flaws that just makes it fall apart. Believing

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

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.

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.

These beliefs depend on a fear of God rather than sole worship, as He is portrayed to be a spiteful, all-powerful being. In my teaching, the fear of God was not placed within me. Instead, a deeper trust in God’s saving powers was instilled upon my beliefs, which attempted to draw belief from love rather than fear. God was portrayed as an all-loving being attempting to free us from the control of sin, which quite evidently contradicts the image of a vengeful God. Religion has shaped the way the

The argument is as follows: God timelessly knows that I will do C. If god timelessly knows that I will do C,then C is now-necessary. If C is now-necessary, then I cannot perform an action that is not C. Therefore, free will is not possible under an omniscient god. ("Foreknowledge and Free Will.”)