Simply put, the fine-tuning argument contends that the universe was designed to ultimately create human beings. Fine-tuning is an argument which is able to contest one of the atheist’s own theories to disprove God. This will be explained in more detail later in this paper. In response to this, McCloskey says the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” As mentioned before, the cosmological argument is but one part of a concurrence for the existence of God. It does not prove God’s existence; it argues that there must be a necessary being which created the universe.
Since we know evil and suffering is a necessary bi-product of human life, we must acknowledge that evil does exist. This proves problematic as it then brings into question the traditional theist’s view of God. However, no traditional theist would accept Hume’s conclusions because it denies God of His perfection. There are ways of sidestepping this issue such as, atheism, deism and polytheism, but none are accepted by traditional theists, and are therefore not a true solution to the problem. A theodicy is seen as a true solution as it defends God’s nature in the face of evil and suffering.
Outline two key objections to the Ontological Argument and explain the responses made to them. The ontological argument was first introduced by Anselm in the ‘Prosologian’. It is an a priori argument as it is not based on empirical evidence but id deductive and analytic in that it allows one to use logical reasoning to reach a logically necessary conclusion which, in theory, cannot be disputed. Anselm defines God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ (TTWNGCBC) and states that everyone, theist or not, can accept this definition. He argues that ‘the fool’ in Psalm 53 can conceive of God but fails to believe he exists.
Response to Article: On Being an Atheist Cassandra Craig PHIL 201 Liberty University Reading the article ‘On Being an Atheist’ by H. J. McCloskey, was an invaluable experience in considering the views of an atheist concerning his beliefs about God, the universe, evil and suffering. This is the kind of article that may assist people in avoiding what Socrates spoke of in earlier lessons in philosophy as an unexamined life. Even if a person doesn’t agree with McCloskey’s views, you are prompted to think about many issues, what you are doing, what you believe and why, also investing time reflecting on what life is all about. Considering that McCloskey most likely gave a lot of thought to the above issues, he was overall very narrow minded in the way he talked about theism, he implies that proofs for theism should be abandoned, and says the evil that is in the world is one of the main reasons; “It is because evil exists that we believe God does not exist” (McCloskey, 1968, p. 52). In view of the PointeCast presentation, theistic arguments determine the best explanation for and not proof of, God’s existence, while considering the complexity and cause of the universe; and morality.
Hume was an empiricist, and therefore believes that for something to exist, there must be evidence that can be accessed by the senses. As Descartes' argument is an a priori argument, there is no empirical evidence to support his definition. Davies agreed that existence can be derived from a definition. Davies claimed that both arguments misuse the language of the argument. For example, Descartes' argument states that 'God IS a being with all perfections' and
McCloskey contended against the three mystical verifications, which are the cosmological argument, the argument from design and the teleological argument. He called attention to the presence of evil on the planet that God made. He likewise called attention to that it is irrational to live by trust or faith. As indicated by McCloskey, confirmations do not essentially assume a fundamental part in the conviction of God. Page 62 of the article expresses that "most theists do not come to have faith in God as a premise for religious conviction, however come to religion as a consequence of different reasons and variables."
One of Aquinas’ ways of proving God’s existence; ‘the uncaused causer’, states that every cause in the universe has an effect, the chain of cause and effect must have a terminus to avoid infinite regress. Aquinas rejects infinite regress because it denotes that there cannot be an answer to the question “what is the explanation?” Therefore there must be a necessary being that started the chain, this for Aquinas is God but this is not a satisfactory answer for everyone. Bertrand Russell, somewhat like Aristotle, states that the universe is a “brute fact”, although unlike Aristotle did not see that there needed to be a Prime Mover or Uncaused Cause. Russell made another criticism when he suggested that one cannot go from saying that every event has a cause thus the whole universe has a cause, it is like moving from saying that every human being has a mother to the claim that the human race as a whole has a mother. One cannot move from individual causes to the totality (whole, everything) has a cause.
The Euthyphro Dilemma In the reading Euthyphro, Socrates asks about piety (“The Euthyphro-Question”) to show the lack of clarity of the Divine Command Theory. By Socrates questioning the meaning of piety, it is intended to show the clarity of the Divine Command Theory. In this paper, I will argue why horn one of the Euthyphro Dilemma shows the Divine Command Theory to be false, but also how horn two supports the theory. The Divine Command Theory states that actions are right or wrong just because God commands or prohibits them. This means that the only thing that makes and act morally wrong is that God either commands or prohibits it.
Earl Putz PHIL201-B06 October 17, 2011 In Response To McCloskey In February 1968, H. J. McCloskey published an article entitled “On Being an Atheist.” It is a work designed to show atheists exactly why they are what they are. As a piece of literature, it is well written and his points are articulated well. However, philosophy is not the opinions of one man or group, but an exchange of ideas that can help people come to a better understanding of their beliefs. McCloskey challenged everything I believe as a Christian, and did so in such a way as to appear that there should be no doubt that his argument is the correct one. As with all debates, however, there is more than one side, and I am going to present my arguments as rebuttals for McCloskey.
The second is that God is omnipotent but not wholly good and allows evil to happen or even promotes it, which would also nullify the status of God. The third is that God is neither omnipotent nor wholly good where that being should never have had the title of God in the first place. The way Mackie has presented his argument against the existence of God relies heavily on the logic of the incompatible triad premise which creates quite an interesting situation for the theist to explain since the triad is a solid paradox. Mackie discusses the arguments made by theists to defend that God and Evil are not mutually exclusive, and why the arguments don’t adequately address the issue of the incomplete triad. The first premise is that God