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
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
But I believe religion is different from other disciplines and should not be compared in terms of providing the same amount of evidence. Maybe there is some sort of incommunicable truth that comes from insight and public evidence will never be able to justify it. But religious and nonreligious evidence has to be different. For example, if science can not agree on some sort of theory there will most likely be a point in which enough public evidence will be gathered so that it would be obvious that this particular theory is true. One example might be the theory that the earth is round.
Title: Defend the Argument from Evil Name: Jun Hao Li Word Count: 1394 Prompt you are responding to: Prompt (3) Defend the Argument from Evil Intro: Since ancient time, people have used the abundance of evil and suffering within our world to challenge the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good God. The argument being that is such a God exists, he would be able and willing to exterminate evil. Seeing that evil still exists, supporters of the Argument from Evil have concluded that an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good God does not exist. Theists have defended the existence of God by arguing that the existence of evil is a result of human’s possession of free will and to preserve the greater good of free will,
For example, Feste says to Olivia, “I wear not motley in my brain.” (i.v.54-55). So although he may dress like a fool he does not have the intelligence of a fool and therefore should not be seen as someone who is dull. Feste is cautioning against making connections between what can be seen and what cannot, the actions and appearance of Feste do not shed light on his sanity as they are mutually exclusive. He later addresses this point again when interrogating Malvolio, “Nay, I’ll ne’er believe a madman till I see his brains.” (iv.ii.122-123). The impossibility of this request not only drives the point that Feste is incapable of determining sanity because he cannot ever see Malvolio’s brain, but that there is inherent danger in letting him analyze Malvolio’s sanity.
The take away points on the Tie argument is that CCF’s are neither true nor false. They hold no truth indicators. So if I apply the Lewis- Stalnaker semantics, they would be tied. To expand more on the topic there are at least two worlds exactly like our world and similarly in the other possible worlds where Loki does kill Thor, in another world where he doesn’t kill Thor, nothing will break this tie. My response to this is that there are distinguishing factors between the worlds and what makes them recognizable.
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
I disagree with Paley because much of the reasoning 's he gives to his arguments are either false or can easily be refuted. I also disagree with Paley because even though he does follow through to his conclusion, the premises of illogically and indirectly saying "because I say so", when he cannot find a logical answer, is not a valid argument. Much of Paley 's argument to prove the existence of a creator of the universe, or God, ignores many counter-arguments. When Paley begins to explain there being a purpose and function of the watch, which is clearly to tell time, he is also not able to identify as to what the exact purpose and function of the universe is. Paley leaves this issue with the renowned “because I said so”, leaving readers to feel as though they have no choice but to agree.
Jones. Only foundation for atheist for not having faith in Gods is that they believe there is a deficiency of faithful indication, Atheists debate if God is present then why evil subsists? Why hurt or loss? Why suffering? Mackie point is if Holy Being subsists as well as is a presence that is completely good, all-powerful, all-knowing, then there shouldn’t be reality of evil, and theists would not discard that Holy Being is completely good, omnipotent, and omniscient and along with that they believe in the existence of some evil.
that men always freely choose what is right?” (McCloskey, 1968). Atheist side with McCloskey’s view that the individuals who put value in the choices of man controversy point to people making poor utilization of their free will. As indicated by Evans and Manis, the subsequent malevolence is because of mans mischief, not of Gods. The fact of the matter is, no one person knows for certain why a cherishing, decent, supreme God would permit malevolence and misery to exist. McCloskey’s debates give a guard against the legitimacy of the issue of malice.
Per Mackie’s logic, it does not make sense that such a being who is wholly good would not eliminate evil. Based off this and the fact that evil still exists, Mackie concludes that God does not exist. However, Mackie’s proposition does have a few slight
First being theism which states that god does exist. Secondly, there is atheism which states that god does not exist. Lastly, there is agnosticism which states that it’s unclear that god does or does not exist. You would think if you don’t have enough evidence for god’s existence, it would be a good idea to go with the argument of agnosticism. However, there is sufficient evidence to prove that argument unsound.
However he does not. For some, this is undeniable proof that God cannot exist or at least not in the way that he is traditionally characterised. One solution is to let go of one or more of the traits usually associated with God and accept that He may not be all good. Natural disasters are completely unpreventable by humans because they are an essential part of how our planet functions so surely an omnibenevolent God, who supposedly designed the universe, would not have made such suffering necessary. Furthermore, the God that is portrayed in the Bible does not appear to be omnibenevolent at all as seen in the line ‘I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all