Atheism : The Case Against God

This essay will not review all of the objections as this would result in overlap and repetition. The Argument from Design argues that the universe was designed by an intelligent designer, God and no further evidence is required to prove their existence. It compares Items in nature

A third objection to the cosmological argument as a whole is that Aquinas insists that everything has a cause; if that is true, then what caused God? There being an uncaused cause would be a contradiction to Aquinas whole argument that everything has a cause yet God has no cause. But Aquinas defends his argument by saying that only everything in our universe has a cause because everything in our universe is a limited, dependent being. That still would require an uncaused, neither finite, nor dependent being unlike anything in our universe, God. Critics also object that the cosmological argument does not prove a loving and personal God, but Aquinas would probably respond by stating that this wouldn’t prove his argument is wrong, only that it has a limited purpose.

The fine-tuning argument by Collins highlights a universe which has been perfectly created for suitable life and that the smallest miscalculation would have been unbearable to sustain life. According to the first premise, the reality of the fine-tuning is not improbable under theism, while premise two states, the fine-tuning is very improbable under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis. The conclusion is that fine-tuning data support robust evidence to support the design hypothesis over the atheistic singe-universe hypothesis. As already noted, most critics would reject the fine tuning-argument by making a compelling argument that there are likely many other big bang that we are probably unaware of and that it is highly probable the universe

William Paley’s teleological argument (also known as the argument from design) is an attempt to prove the existence of god. This argument succeeds in proving that while existence was created by an aggregation of forces, to define these forces, as a conscious, rational, and ultimately godlike is dubious. Although the conclusions are valid, the argument makes several logical errors. The teleological argument relies on inductive reasoning, rendering the argument itself valid, but unsound. The argument fails to apply its own line of reasoning to itself, resulting in infinite regression. Beyond the scope of its logical flaws, the arguments content lacks accurate comparisons. The argument hinges on a

The argument discussed is one that has an unending list of contingent beings, all of which need a cause for existence. According to the article, McCloskey assumes that the argument calls for an uncaused cause to start an infinite number of contingent beings. McCloskey believes that each contingent being simply exists with an infinite number of causes that eventually lead back to a case of chance. In “Philosophy of Religion” by Stephen Evans, Evans refers to this way of thinking as a “brute fact.” According to Evans, by claiming this stance would turn the partial argument into a whole argument and concurrently, “this will require the defender of the argument to claim that the contingency of the whole of the universe can validly be inferred from the contingency of all its parts.” Where McCloskey’s ignorance further takes a violent curve against acquiring knowledge about the beginning of the universe connects to his argument is when he said “This means that the first cause must be explained as being a necessarily existing being, one who cannot exist.” What he is alluding to, and is also the focal point of his disapproval of theism, is that humans do not have the right to claim that a being created the universe. If an atheist can claim that there is no such existence of God, then why is it that a theist cannot claim the existence of a God?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument presented by Dr. William Lane Craig states that everything that beings to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist; therefore: the universe has a cause. The Cosmological argument argues that the universe that we live in has a cause and purpose. There must be a creator (God) of the universe because the universe cannot have a cause without something or someone feeling the need to create. In the Craig-Dacey debate Dr. Dacey opening argument or rebuttal was aimed to disprove God’s existence. Dr. Dacey begin to show that the concept of God is self- contradictory.

There is no objective evidence to demonstrate the existence of nature’s creator. If we were to think the design argument was reasonable, then one must also take under consideration the amount of ‘creators’ are required

The belief in Gods has always existed throughout human’s recored history. Whether it be the Greek Gods: Apollo, and Zeus, or the Judeo-Christian God, believed by Christians in modern day society. The belief of God has always existed among humans, however, assuming God does not exist, what explains the cultural evolution of such a false belief, namely religion? I shall argue that the reason this false belief is successful is because it manipulates human nature better than any other belief by these three points: an avoidance of death (the soul), a sense of worth (knowledge), and a sense, or need of belief (faith).

The video, God vs. Atheism: Which is more rational, doesn’t make sense to me. It starts by saying faith’s a belief in God, but towards the end it says God doesn’t require faith. If Faith is a belief in God, how does God not require faith? It says Atheism requires faith but Atheists don’t believe in God. How would Atheists have a belief in God, Faith? It says faith and reason are opposites which I agree with but I feel God has to do with faith and Atheists think they are being reasonable because they feel science has proved God impossible, but just like the video said, the belief in God is far more rational than Atheism. Logic can show there’s a God. Nothing can come from nothing. Things move and we know something must cause that movement. Catholics believe God is the unmoved mover. Just because you

Creationism argues that God is the cause of everything in the universe, as the universe and everything it contains would not have come into existence without the assistance of a supreme being. This leads creationists to oppose the fact of evolution; their argument opposing evolution ultimately comes down to the argument that evolution is an unproven “theory” (Ruse 2014). This argument, however, does not take into account the meaning of a scientific theory, scientists call everything they discover a theory because they are open to new explanations and discovery’s. In saying this, evolution is about as proven theory as a theory goes, and it is not disputed by those in the scientific community (Dawkins 1986). The near undeniability of evolution has led many theologians to ultimately argue for theistic evolution, which suggests that while evolution is real, it has been set in motion by God (Ruse 2014). Both Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins take issue with this argument because they believe evolution and divine creation are two contradictory concepts. Occam’s razor suggests that to explain an event there should be no more assumptions made than what is absolutely necessary; if the event were truly plausible, there would be no need for any more claims. Krauss (2012) uses occam’s razor to suggest that “Surely the requirement of an all-powerful deity who somehow exists outside of our

I believe that that the Cosmological argument gives good reason to believe in the existence of God. The Cosmological argument focuses on everything having a cause except one thing that started it all, this starter is known as the “Prime Mover”. The Prime Mover is the one that starts everything without anything having a previous effect on it. With that people have assumed that the logical answer to who the prime mover is, is God. This to me seems the most logical of arguments because although there is the idea of eternity and an eternal cycle there has to be a starting point. I do not believe the argument is successful.

Firstly, we shall focus on the Design (or to use its philosophically technical term, the teleological argument). There are numerous variants of the Design argument, however we shall be focusing on Paley’s version (reference 1) of this theory. Paley’s version of the Design argument is based upon the idea that by looking around at certain features of the world (for example an inanimate object like a rock or say a living creature like dolphin or a person like myself) and theorising that they are too complex and intricate to randomly just manifest. They must have been created by a higher, more intelligent power and thus, if this is accepted as being so, then this proves beyond doubt that God exists.

Additionally, several arguments exist in order to justify theism, including the argument from design and the ontological, cosmological, moral arguments. Taking logical, empirical, and moral considerations into thought, the philosophical justification of theism holds; yet there are corresponding rebuttals that raise skepticism within my scientific self. For example, in The Analogy of the Watch by William Paley, a hypothetical situation arises in which one finds a pocket watch in the middle of the woods-- upon its discovery, one would figure that the laws

People in our society today who have the atheist point of view on religion, which is the belief that there is no god, are going against the so-called norms of society, and therefor are seen as deviant. Deviance is just an idea. Society determines what is deviant by the ideas they hold of what should be the norm. Atheism is seen as a negative deviance, or below the norm. They have a status that is placed on them in society. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they believe in evil, although that is how it is sometimes viewed from people in society who have a specific religion or faith. Atheism, which is not a new idea, has been evolving in our society, and is the reason for problems leading to debate and court cases, and for

Everything about the fundamental structure and systems of the universe occurred in such a way that allows life to exist. In other terms, and how this argument received its name, everything from physical constants in physics to the balance of energy has been fine-tuned to permit life. The fine- tuning argument suggests that this level of improbability and complexity could not have possibly been achieved without intelligent design, which therefore supports the existence of God. This is where I challenge Robin Collins’ argument. I contend that the fine-tuning argument does provide evidence of an intelligent ‘being’, but would not go as far as to say that the argument provides evidence of God himself. According to the dictionary, God is defined as “the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.” The fine-tuning argument only corroborates a portion of the definition of what God is. The fine-tuning argument supplies reasoning as to there being a creator, a designer, that is intelligent and able to fabricate a life-sustaining universe, but does not even begin to attempt to prove that there is a being, the same being that is the creator, that rules the universe and also provides all moral authority. Robin Collins states that the fine-tuning argument is one of the most powerful arguments in favor of the existence of God(4). I suggest that the existence of the creator of the universe is supported by the fine-tuning argument, but the existence of the full