Cleanthe's Argument That Humans Cannot Fathom God

1. The cosmos as we know it demands that there be an intelligent designer behind it.

For my book review I chose The Reason for God by Timothy Keller. I have read this book before, but I wanted to go through again, summarize and analyze it. The purpose of this paper will be to summarize The Reason for God and analyze it’s writing style and arguments. The Reason for God defends knowledge of God and is naturally an apologetic work. Interestingly enough though, it reads more like a pastoral than it does an apologetic work.

"When the question is asked, what we are to believe in regard to religion, it is not necessary to probe into the nature of things, as was done by the Greek scientists. We need not be alarmed should the Christian not know the number of elements; the motion of the heavenly bodies; the shape of the cosmos; the species of animals and plants; the nature of stones, rivers, and mountains; about time and distance; the signs of coming storms; or about a thousand other things which these scientists have either found out, or think they have found out.

Edwards' speech, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", is a congitive piece of argument that basis its creates fear in its audience. During the time of the Great Awakening, many Salem Witch Trials imprisioned and killed many. He believed that he could not only convert non-believers, but also give a wake-up call to the ones who have fallen off the tracks. Ed repeatedly talks about people's doom and destruction, but then later on contradicts himself by giving a call to action. Given the setting and circumstances of his time, EdwarsEdwards' speech, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", is an example of an effective argument due to his allusions to the past and polished use of visual imagery, and the audience's susceptibility to fear. to create

Arguments for religion usually develop by the elaboration of hypotheses about what might be the case, in reaction to atheistic attacks. As Hume's Philo says, there is an inventiveness in religious arguments "entirely owing to the nature of the subject"; he contrasts it with other subjects, in which "there is commonly but one determination that carries probability or conviction with it", whereas in religion "a hundred contradictory views" flourish to defend one point; and he claims that "without any great effort of thought, I believe that I could, in an instant, propose other systems of cosmogony, which would have some faint appearance of truth". Likewise, at every step in this essay, one could in an instant formulate a hundred hypotheses to defend religion against my criticism, and for each hypothesis the refutation of it can be rebuffed by another hundred hypotheses, all equally baseless.

People believe that if evil exists then so does God, and vice versa. It is also a common belief that this perfect being is the creator of everything and everyone. From atom to atom and from molecule to molecule, he designed all of it. It is also believed that this God has no flaws and is indeed a perfect being. However, some people will tend to disagree. Ernest Nagel, an American philosopher, proposed a series of counterarguments to many classic arguments on behalf of God’s existence. He dismisses arguments such as the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, and the argument of design, by quickly pointing out their flaws. But just as there are people who discredit God’s existence, there are people who argue that he does exist. Richard Swinburne, a British philosopher, provides his own series of arguments on why God exists. Moreover, his arguments are centralized around the problem of evil. In “Why God Allows Evil”, Swinburne discusses rationale behind God allowing evil to exist. To keep it short and sweet, Swinburne believes that there are two types of evils, moral and natural, and that they exist for a reason.

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

Frederick Copleston was a priest, and historian of philosophy who supported Aquinas’ rejection of infinite regress. Copleston reformulated the argument by concentrating on contingency, which he discussed in depth during a radio debate with Bertrand Russell in 1947. Copleston, like Aquinas, argued that there are things in the universe which are contingent, for example, us – we would not have existed if our parents had not met. All things in the world are similar to this, nothing in the world is self-explanatory, and everything depends on something else for its existence. Therefore, we are forced to search for an external explanation. The explanation must lead us to a cause which is self explanatory, i.e. one which contains within itself, the reason for its own existence – a necessary being. The conclusion must be God. Copleston argues that if we don’t accept the existence of an ‘unmoved mover’, like Aquinas suggested, there is no explanation for the universe at all. Copleston believes the universe is gratuitous without a first cause, because without an explanation, nothing has meaning – “Everything is gratuitous. This garden, this city, and myself; when you suddenly realise it, it makes you feel sick and everything begins to drift… that’s nausea”.

The Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences is one of the most influential works in the history of modern philosophy, and important to the evolution of natural sciences. In this work, Descartes tackles the problem of skepticism. Descartes modified it to account for a truth he found to be incontrovertible. Descartes started his line of reasoning by doubting everything, so as to assess the world from a fresh perspective, clear of any preconceived notions. Whereas Francis Bacon’s Scientific Method wanted to replace the deductive reasoning by inductive reasoning. The important concept in this reformed

Does God exist? This question has been in debate for centuries with many opposing views, some arising from philosophers on the same side while others refute Gods existence altogether. However for this particular paper I will be taking the best explanations approach. What I mean by this is I do not have proof of God’s existence but the existence of God is the best explanation for the universe around me. With this statement in mind we will discuss arguments in support of God’s existence as well as philosopher H.J McCloskey’s article On Being an Atheist.

The analogy just doesn’t work. Second, some say that the theories of the big bang and evolution better explain the complexity in the universe. Third, some say that even if the teleological argument is true, it does not prove the existence of the Christian God.

a) Christians believe many different things about God’s nature; due to the huge spectrum of Christians that there are. However, as a general rule they perceive God as being one of the following four things:

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 existence of God is a question that has troubled and plagued mankind since it began to consider logic. Is there a God? How can we be sure that God exists? Can you prove to me that He is real? Does His existence, or lack thereof, make a significant difference? These loaded questions strike at the heart of human existence. But the real question is, can we answer any of them? These questions are answered in the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal and St. Anselm of Canterbury. For thousands of years, theologians, philosophers and scientists have been trying to prove or disprove God’s existence. Many, including the three mentioned above, have strong proofs and theories that attempt to confirm God’s existence. Although, without any scientific evidence, how can they be entirely sure? “Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs,” (Kreeft). Gravity similar to God’s existence ; it cannot be seen nor explained, yet it still exists. With faith, reason, understanding and even some math, God’s existence can be verified rationally.

        One cannot argue against philosophical theory without first opening their eyes to the opposing debate.  This argument is not about Christianity or the existence of a particular religion but the