The story of the gods goes too far into being an opinion for one to be able to side with it. The end of the book was too much of a cop-out, a poor way to end the book. It had nothing to do with the book itself. To begin, the Taker and Leaver culture was beyond generalized. The who Takers and Leavers thing is too generalized.
It is impossible, though, that the series of causes should extend back to infinity because every cause is dependent on a prior cause and the ultimate cause is thus dependent on a previous cause. So if there is no first cause, there will be no intermediate causes and no final cause. But the absence of such causes clearly does not square with our observation, and so there must therefore be a first efficient cause, which everyone
Meanwhile, McCloskey believes that the only conclusion we can reach is that something caused the universe to exist. From reading his article, I feel that he does not formulate a valid argument as to how the power exists or how it created the universe. He goes onto to describe any creator that could exist is either a powerful being or a muddler and is not a god, but an evil spirit or a being that had very disastrous consequences due to their limitations ( McCloskey, pg.64). McCloskey closes his argument of the cosmological argument by stating that belief in either is not a source of strength or security ( McCloskey,
The human race will eventually no longer exist just like all others creations here on earth. I do believe that if more people adopt either one of the above beliefs the world would be a better place. Both Atheist and Theist have sound beliefs. All that he is implying can be applied to both beliefs. There is no single truth that can explain how the Universe exists.
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."
He believes there truly is no comparison. In fact, he believes that there is nothing we can compare this world to because, as far as we know, there is not another world even similar to us. We have no standard in which we can judge our world because our world is all we know. According to Hume, we cannot assume a Christian God as the creator. He was not sure we could even assume a creator, let alone choose one religions God to be the true one.
But they should think logically and if they thought logically they would see that they can only ask this question because it had already happened and they exist. And there are billions of planets where there is no life, but there is no one on those planets with brains to notice”
I feel that this argument fails to prove the existence of God. There is no real proof that God created the universe or people based on the teleological argument, although it is a valid argument, I just do not think that it is plausible that God created the earth. There are many other theories that give more evidence and better proof that counter the teleological argument. Works
It does not prove God’s existence; it argues that there must be a necessary being which created the universe. This is consistent with some views of God, however, it is far from an all-encompassing explanation. The argument is not considered to be the end-all-be-all defense for the existence of God. However, it is a good
To kill or sacrifice oneself, even for a religious ideal, is wrong. It is a waste of life, and no one can tell what great things may have come from that person living, and even the religions people die for condemn that act. It is true that some people die a meaningful death. Marty’s throughout history have given their lives for a cause they believed in. However, even among martyrs a good death is rare, because a real martyr never means to die for their cause, but is willing to do so.