The complexities inherent with any mention of a higher being to explain any natural phenomenon goes against the principles of Ockham’s razor as a simplifying argument. Ockham’s razor is used successfully throughout history to simplify complex observable ideas. The unobservable, abstract ideas are not always as easily explained using Ockham’s razor. God is inherently a complex, abstract idea. For this reason, ontological argument, cosmological argument, and teleological arguments are immune from the ability to be over simplified using the application of Ockham’s
There have been an innumerable amount of arguments for the existence of God for hundreds of years. Some have become much more popular due to their merit, and their ability to stay relevant through changing times. Two arguments in particular that have been discussed for a very long time are the ontological and cosmological arguments. Each were proposed in the period of the high middle ages by members of the Roman Catholic Church. They each have been used extensively by many since their introduction. However, one of the arguments is superior ant that is the ontological argument. The Ontological argument is the stronger of the two due to the fact that it is based in pure logic and reasoning.
In making the argument for the existence of the Law of Human Nature, C.S. Lewis first establishes the acknowledgement of a few different universal laws that man in subjected to. There is the law of gravity, in which Lewis insinuates that in the eyes of gravity, the body of man and a mere stone are one and the same. Then there are biological laws that correspond with those than an animal has. However, the one law that is specific to man and that man is free to disobey or get “mistaken”, is the “Law of Nature or decent behavior” (Lewis). C.S. Lewis uses inductive reasoning to form this kind of logic by first making the observation that even though throughout time man has seemed to have had different agreements of what they believe to be moral,
In conclusion, my reconstruction of John Locke’s argument in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, I rejected premise number 4. Which is “if bare nothing cannot produce a being, then an eternal being exists”. This premise needs further justification for it to be correct. The term “bare nothing” does not cancel out that explanation that nature could have the power to produce another being. Locke responded explaining that nature is the first beginning and every beginning was produced by something else. An eternal being was the reason why the explosion of nature started our world and further produced all of
I argue that while mechanistic and teleological explanations are distinctly different, both are required in order to thoroughly explain a phenomenon. In this essay, I will describe mechanistic, atomistic, and teleological explanations, highlight their key differences, and then explain why one cannot completely understand a phenomenon without incorporating a teleological component.
The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.
Paley gives the example of the watch being complex, so it must have a creator. Things can be complex, without having a designer, for example a snowflake. If we were created by an intelligent designer, then why are we not perfect? If God created us, then why do babies die young? Why do natural disasters kill millions and millions of people? God is meant to be omniscient and benevolent, yet why does he let these atrocities take place. Even if there was an intelligent designer that created us and our universe, what evidence is there to show that it’s God. Based on past experience we know that a watch will have been designed by a human, however we have no past experiences of a universe being created by an intelligent designer. Even though it is extremely unlikely that a watch could have been created by random chance, it is still not impossible; there is still the slightest chance that this could happen.
The debate of the existence of God has always been a controversial topic and has been going on for centuries. Till this day it is still a debate. We have people who strongly believe in God and others who questions his existence. Those who have strong faith will try to convince everyone who does not believe in God that he exits. They will try to come up with arguments to show he is real and good. St. Anselm and Descartes are known for presenting the first ontological arguments on the existence of God. The word ontological is a compound word derived from ‘ont’ which means exists or being and ‘–ology’ which means the study of. Even though Anselm and Descartes’ arguments differ slightly, they both stem from the same reasoning. Unlike the other two arguments on God’s existence (teleological and cosmological), the ontological argument does not seek to use any empirical evidence but rather concentrates on pure reason. The rationale behind this school of thought
The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist. At the beginning of the article, Mackie states that the initial issue with God’s existence is that, “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, Paragraph 3). If god is such a pure and good being, then he should be able to combat all evil.
Aquinas differs from Paley by arguing that nothing happens by chance and that all things have means and ends. He also believed in a master powerful creator (God) that directed things to their natural end. While, Paley’s arguments did not include the bible or religion. Although, since Aquinas believed that things that don’t have minds can accomplish goals but only if it is controlled with something that does have a mind with intelligence and knowledge. Paley argued that things such as a watch is complicated, meaning in order to be functional it has many pieces that are made to fit together and was made for a sole functional purpose, that is to tell time, Unlike Aquinas argued that it must have a maker who created something with intelligence
Hume (textbook, p. 305) develops, in detail, what is presumably the most grounded contention against the presence of God in a valid deductive argument. He states, “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” In a similar vein: If God exists, he is all-knowing, omnipotent, and ethically flawless. If God were all-knowing, God would know about all the terrible occasions that occur in our reality. If God were omnipotent, God would have the capacity to do something. Furthermore, if God were ethically flawless, then unquestionably God would want to do something about all the evil and suffering. But, yet there are still countless instances of evil that fills our world. Concluding, since God does not prevent or eliminate all unnecessary suffering, logically, God does not exist. Hume concludes that if you want to make sense of all the evil randomness of the universe with the sense of God’s attributes, “You must prove these pure, unmixed, and uncontrollable attributes from the present mixed and confused phenomena, and from these alone. A hopeful undertaking!”
Abortion is an ongoing ethical issue that attracts many different views from various races, religions and ethical groups. Deontological or teleological views are two major categories that many major religious views can be sorted into. An ethical issue is a problem or situation that requires a person or organization to choose between alternatives that must be evaluated as right (ethical) or wrong (unethical). Deontological points of view, such as Kant, are ones that involve always telling the truth and that all morals are related universally. For example this means that you can’t lie, even if someone close to you is in danger. Teleology basically endorses that the ends satisfy the means. If it happened then by nature, it was meant to happen.
William Paley’s argument from design starts off with a man seeing a watch on the side of the road. The argument is whether or not someone designed the watch, or if the watch randomly just showed up there itself by random chance. He makes an analogy of watches and humans. He says that since there is a designer that made the watch, there must be a designer that made us humans. The reason that he compares watches to humans is that is because they are both complex and have parts that work very well together. He says that the designer for humans is God. I think the analogy does a great job of showing that humans have a designer, but I disagree with the argument that it shows that God created us.
Since premise two has been rebuffed by me, it renders premise 3 unsound which in turn renders premise four unsound thereby proving that God does not exist and proving that the first cause argument does not validate or prove the existence of God. The first cause argument while it is a very important argument still lacks credibility and is self-defeating as it is riddled with a lot of problems that makes it hard to reach a true and sound
Before restating the Anselm’s argument for the existence of God, it is important to understand who Anselm was and what might have compelled him to come up with the ontological argument for the existence of God. Anselm’s background information will be helpful in evaluating the validity and reliability of his arguments.