Existence of God Argumentative Paper Essay

at that place argon many different types of pedigrees for the populacely concern of graven image. With each melody in that location is a conception presented of idol. For each argument at that place argon different approaches. I volition be focusing on the cosmogenic and Teleo rational Arguments. Teleo logical Arguments are known to be arguments from divine, joust from order in the macrocosm to the creation of discourse of immortal (1).With the ordering of the universe, created by an intelligent world, they hold that it is ordered towards a purpose or an windup. The Cosmological Argument is the argument that the existence of the humanness or universe is sozzled reason for the existence of a beau ideal who created it. It is a first caused argument where the existence of the universe, the argument claims, stands in need of rendering, and the provided adequate explanation of its existence is that it was created by god (1).Behind this argument, it holds that thou gh the universe comfort needs explanation for its existence, the existence of matinee idol Himself does non. In the article McCloskey is vital of these arguments for Gods existence supporting his stance by offering the occupation of corruptive as reasoning to non believe. He believes the mental picture in the existence of God is non a source of aptitude and hostage (2). However, if we are to use the Cumulative Case approach we after part waste successive truths. This case cumulates the Cosmological, Teleological, as well as, the Moral Arguments together. It appoints us the conclusion of a personal, moral, intelligent creator of the universe as the topper explanation for the universe we experience (3).McCloskey maintains that the Teleological Argument is not fitting and that it gage be scorned simply by rejecting its premise. The premise holds that at that place is in fact evidence of purpose and design. McCloskey asserts though, that thither were many things that were considered evidence or proof, prior to evolution, effective now those very things are now not being considered as so. Thus, in order to be a proof, at that place has to be given indisputable examples. Given that the Teleological Argument, presenting disputable examples, says McCloskey, there is no proof. in that respect can be no form of argument with evidence of an intellectual design and/or designer. I would bemuse to reason out with McCloskey by using the fine-tuning argument. Within the universe is nothing short of precision, not only of natural legalitys, just the counterbalance stages and state of the universe.These both are pointers to an intelligent Creator. The universe is finely-tuned maintaining physical constants of nature (5).The strength of gravity should be considered. With the occurrence of the Big Bang. The gravity had to concord precision because even with a little more force used on either side, it would not set out occurred as the Big Bang, but t he Big Crunch. Even with the slightest trade in gravity, it could change the world into something completely other than what we know. That which is being offered as evidenced cannot be questi adeptd. If we were to give to evolution as truth, there is static no yard for believing it is true. It does nothing but in the end support the theist position, and shows that evolution needs teleology.McCloskeys main dissent to theism is the presence of slimy in the world, No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was unavoidable pang or in which his creatures would(and in fact could have been created so as not to) engage in mor everyy criminal acts, acts which very often end point in injury to innocent persons (1). With this problem on McCloskeys bear in mind, he holds it to the theists. He still wonders how the theist does not take this to mind eyesight that it goes against the perfection of the divine purpose.There can be no grounds in a belief of a perfect being. Even if all reason was thrown out, he says the theist at best could only present a pool of beings full of concern, dismay, and anxiety, rather than comfort and security (1). There is a logical problem of evil and there is logical inconsistency when there is both the existence of God and of evil. The skeptic holds that there is severe contradiction in terms between claiming God is full(a), yet evil exists. Mackie, an atheist, says the contradiction does not arise immediately to show it we need some supererogatory premisesthese additional principles are that substantially is opposed to evil, in such(prenominal) a way that a nigh(a) thing always eliminates evil as far as it can, and that there are no limits to what an powerful thing can do.From these it follows that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the propositions that a good omnipotent thing exists, and that evil exists, are incompatible(8). There exists two kinds of evil. There is human evil , and natural evil in which atheist claim are both forms of needless suffering. The logical problem of evil claims the tension between simultaneously having evil in the world, while also having a perfect God. This would without a doubt be a logical contradiction according to the atheist. There is also the evidentiary problem of evil. With this claim, there is not contradiction, but the fact that evil exists, if give grounding evidence for being able to reject that God is all-powerful. It is a weaker version of the former, and claims that it is highly unlikely that an all-perfect God exists. Plantinga responds with trying to defend that it is sensible to believe in God, even without evidence. His position is known as amend Epistemology.In order for his view to hold he would have to reject the Evidentialist Credo., which he claims rests on Classical Foundationalism. This led him to his positive view, or reform Epistemology. This holds that a belief in God is properly basic.Some pur pose to these claims, saying that evil is logically required for good and is needed for us to see the good. Evil is a means and go away cause good. There is given the free will defense that is meant to try and answer the problem of evil. Either this would condescend about by humans free will resulting in a greater good and that evil is ascribed the humans and not God. However, those who oppose this, bring up the issue of natural evils. Mackie stands his ground that God should have given human beings free will in such a way that we always chose the good.The atheist propose God did not create men to choose between right and wrong, and that God is chastely inconsistent. In response, the free will theodicy attempts to defeat the former by claiming the suffering of the innocent is expertified because of the existence of free will. We as humans have misused our free will, and then what is known as moral evil. different sufferings from evil come from the natural evils. While McCloske y challenges the free will defense, Plantinga proposes the law of non-contradiction. He argues for there could be logically possible affairs whereby God would be unable of creating a world of both evil and autonomous humans (9). Evans puts it simply, It does not seem to be true that a good being always eliminates evil as far as it can. What is true, perhaps, is that good being always eliminates evil as far as it can without the loss of a greater good or the allowance of a worse evil (1).McCloskey objects to the cosmological argument claiming, mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being(1). There has been great objection to this however because of the fact of contingent objects. God is the first cause, the one who began it all. Because there is not explanation for contingent beings, if God is a demand being, He is the necessary cause of the existence of worldly concern and we as beings. God has no cause, otherwise He would not be God. It is the very existence of the world that implies the existence of God. The laws of nature imply the existence of a lawgiver, God. This position was held by Aristotle, holding firmly against the possibility of blank regress. The argument from contingency suggests that it is possible the universe might not have existed, thus needing explanation of why it does in fact exist. In essence, it must have a cause. This leads to the belief in necessary being, meaning a being that needs no explanation.The temporal cosmological argument holds that the beginning of the universe was either caused or uncaused. However, objectors to this say we cannot actually claim whether the universe had to exist. Also, a necessary being comes into question. The refuters say this line of argument does not give enough explanation of why there could not be more than one cause. There is no ground for putting God as the first cause or prime mover. Time and origin as we know it cannot be grounds for explaining the beginni ngs of the universe. However, those objecting to McCloskey, hold if there were a being like the universe, then he would exist in time, thus he himself came into existence. But, the ultimate cause must not have come into existence. For it to be an ultimate cause, the ultimate Creator must be remote of time. (10).What McCloskey fails to realize, is that not every argument is going to capture every formula of God. There are many different arguments that go about doing that.If God does not exist, then all has no hope of immortality. Life, the world, and everything in it is meaningless. There would be no purpose or significance to anyone or anything. This leaves us with no ultimate meaning without immorality and God. Would we be able to say there was any purpose or meaning to someone who lived just to die? To be born just to pass out of existence? Lane says that it is not just each individual person that is headed towards the grave, but the universe itself is headed for extinction. Thi s all in all is hopeless. Dying man, in a dying world. If this is the case, the small details in life do not matter, it does not make a difference. Our behaviors, our choices do not matter. Dotoyevsky said If there is no immortality then all things are permitted (11). Without God, there is no accountability, morality, or sense of right and wrong. Even more so, in a universe without God, good and evil do not exist (11). However, if we were to say there were no God, we would still be without purpose because we would just be accidental. We would just be accidents of chance.The only view that can save the human hasten from itself is a theistic view (11). The only thing going for an atheist is living with the fact of the absurdity of life. Such a view makes it unrealistic to live a fulfilling, happy life. For the atheist, absurdity of life and creating meaning for ones life is a contradiction. A major disadvantage of godlessness is that no one has hope or faith for reward of good or a nd punishment of evil. A believers hope is this, Christ. Ephesians 311 tells us that God had a purpose I mind before He created. Man within his own voluntary will would be able to love and choose God. Nature alone points to God. human being and the universe itself does not have to exist. Both are not self-existent but caused. There is no explanation for their existence. Within a Christian world view, life is not meaningless and pointless ending at the grave. We have hope in the resurrection and of eternal life. God and immortality are both necessary for a meaning full life (11).Bibliography11- Craig, William Lane. The Absurdity of Life without God. In Reasonable Faith Christian Truth and Apologetics, by William Lane Craig, 71-90. Wheaton hybridizing Books, 2008. 1-Evans, C. Stephen, and R. Zachary Manis. Philosophy of Religion Thinking About Faith. Downers Grove IVP Academic, 2009. 8- Kunkle,Brett. The crystal clear Problem of Evil. Truth Never Gets Old. April 21, 2009 2- McClosk ey, H. J. On Being an Atheist. Question (1968)63-69. 5- Biologos. What is the fine-tuning of the universe, and how does it dole out as a pointer to God? 9- http//kevinfannystevenson.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-being-theist-response-to-h-j.html 10- http//www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-argument.html