Mccloskey: The Proof For The Existence Of God

Ward states that doing “good” includes more than pleasure. It includes moral obligations and objective intrinsic values to do right by others and ensure pleasure for oneself. With an omnipotent and omniscient being like the monotheistic God, Ward argues that these values and obligations would be grounded within God. Thus, an "evil God would have to

Born in 1949, the Christian philosopher and theologian, William Craig is most known for his defense of the Kalam cosmological argument. The Kalam cosmological argument is rooted in Islamic theologians of the Ilm al-Kalam tradition. The Ilm al-Kalam also known as Islamic natural theology attempts to justify the belief in God by constructing arguments for God’s existence. The main specificity of the Kalam is that it relies on the premise that the universe began to exist. Craig’s main argument is against the possibility of existence of actual infinities he believes there is always a cause of existence.

McCloskey claims atheism is more comforting than theism. In a world without God life could be devastating, we would be doomed to death. God is the hope for mankind for love and immortality, if God didn’t exist mankind would not exist. There would be no significance to one’s life to become inspired to do great things. There could be a moral standard to prevent mass genocide, war and taking of lives if God did not exist in world.

Thus God should be able to create a world that is free of evil, but he hasn’t. This insinuates that Gods power is limited, or that he doesn’t care to rid the world of evil. Yet, what is truly evil? Would evil be unpleasant feelings and experiences? We have no evidence that evil truly is pain and sorrow.

JL Mackie was persuasive in his argument by showing that belief in an almighty God is not rational. He proves this by posing the problem of evil. According to JL Mackie, if God exists and is omniscient, omnipotent, and good then evil would not exist. However, evil exists in this world, sometimes in the form of undeserved suffering (diseases that affect humans, earthquakes, famines ...) and others perpetrated by man (murders, wars ...). If God exists and has the capability to be powerful, good, omniscient and omnipotent, why would he let evil be perpetrated?

McCloskey claimed that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” At first glance of this statement I am understanding the statement as that something doesn’t allow us to come up with a belief or solution, which is silly. In the same thinking one could say that based on his arguments he is not allowed to assume there is no God. Nevertheless, based on the existence of a contingent being it points toward the existence of a necessary being because they require an ultimate cause. Beyond this, the cosmological argument may be limited.

In this essay, I will examine the debate between Russell and Copleston as they discuss the ‘Metaphysical Argument’ for the existence of God. Taking into consideration both sides of the argument, I will defend Copleston’s philosophical views as being right. I will first explain Copleston’s position through the Principle of Sufficient Reason and then provide the reasons why I agree with them. In the debate, Copleston takes a stance in favor of the existence of a biblical God using the Cosmological Argument as his proof.

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.

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.

In this he questions the attributes of God that are traditionally used to describe him. He claims that there is a lack of foundational evidence to prove that God is not only the creator of the universe but is the All Mighty God that he is described as (Speaks). Rather than Hume arguing that Paley’s argument is false, he focuses heavily on if God even exists or if he is the higher figure that he is painted as. Another argument that can be used against Paley is the theory of the Big Bang Theory.

On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it. I will begin by stating the objection the anti-theodicist gives for why it is wrong that there is a problem of evil. (<--fix) Regarding passive evil not caused by human action, the anti-theodicist claims that there is an issue with a creator, God, allowing a world to exist where evil things happen, which are not caused by human beings (180-181).

This paper will discuss the problem of evil. In the first part, I will discuss Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheist stance and William Lane Craig’s theist stance on the problem of evil. In the final part of this paper, I will argue that Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s argument is stronger. The Problem of Evil

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.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a theory of religion that attempts to explain the existence of God by the following: Whatever began to exist must have a cause, unlike God, the Universe began to exist, Thus, there must be an uncaused cause of the Universe, namely God. Through examining the many criticisms of this argument, it is discernible that it is not valid and does not achieve the purpose of proving God's existence. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is favorable over Tomas Aquainas’ traditional Cosmological Argument, which says: Some things are caused, nothing can cause itself, so everything must be caused by an external force, namely God, because it is more specific, especially by encapsulating evidence

The traditional claim of all Cosmological Arguments is defined as “something outside the universe is responsible to explain the existence of the universe” (PowerPoint 380). In the “causal argument,” or the First Cause Argument on the cosmological argument, “something” outside of the universe that is supposed to inform us about the existence of the universe is argued to be explained as God. As the first cause argument goes into depth and with the help of Thomas Aquinas, it is easy to see how God is responsible for explaining the existence of the universe around us. Within the first cause argument on the cosmological argument the following premises and conclusions are discussed: Premise 1: There exists things that are caused. Meaning that