In response to the parent analogy, Hume concedes that the Problem of Evil argument does not wholly disprove the existence of God. Though, he does point out that the parent analogy assumes that God exists, which means we require further reasons to believe that he does in order to accept this particular theodicy. He concludes that most "objections seem to be mere fault-finding and trickery; and then we can 't imagine how we could ever give weight to them" (pg. 9). 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. He continue and states, “It is tempting to raise the following sort of question.
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. The basic assumption, on which the entire argument stands, that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined can seem doubtful to a person who doubts the existence of God, for if one doubts that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived, then he may also be skeptical if any person has thoughts about the same being, whose existence itself is doubtful.
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.
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. Some of those reasons come from those claiming Gods existence is impossible which requires coherent proof of his nonexistence.
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 is favoring towards Christianity to believe in God than realizing that there are other outcomes in this world. In brief, Pascal 's wager fails to demonstrate that putting a bet on God could lead to infinite happiness, and the best outcome. 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