The Argument Of God 's Existence

1. The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is based on the principle of cause and effect. What this basically means is that the universe was the effect of a cause, which was God. One of the oldest and most well known advocates of the Cosmological Argument was Thomas Aquinas who outlines his argument for the existence of God in his article entitled The Five Ways. The first way in his argument is deals with motion. Aquinas says that in order for something to be in motion something had to move it because it is impossible for something to move without the presence of some sort of outside force upon it. Therefore the world around us, nature, and our very existence could not have been put into motion without the influence of the

Throughout many centuries philosophers have argued over the existence of God. In today’s society many people tend to hesitate in believing in a God because of the new scientific discoveries. For example, in the mid 1990s scientists built the Hubble telescope which revealed that there were billions of galaxies in our universe, this discovery led some people to question how can one divine being create so much and yet have a personal connection with everyone in the world. Which, in result, may take some scientific explanation to strengthen one’s belief in God, but for those who believe there is a benevolent God they do not need science to show proof that he exists because of their morals and beliefs they have been raised to follow. In this paper I will prove that God does exist by explaining the ontological, cosmological, and design argument.

In his article, On Being an Atheist, H.J. McCloskey tried to show that atheism is a more reasonable and comfortable belief than that of Christianity.   McCloskey argued against the three theistic proofs, which are the cosmological argument, the teleological argument and the argument from design.   He pointed out the existence of evil in the world that God made.   He also pointed out that it is irrational to live by faith. According to McCloskey, proofs do not necessarily play a vital role in the belief of God.  Page 62 of the article states that "most theists do not come to believe in God as a basis for religious belief, but come to religion as a result of other reasons and factors."  However, he feels that as far as proofs serve theists,

Having completed the unit of philosophy of religion, you are now ready to respond to an article written by an actual atheist.  This article, titled “On Being an Atheist,” was written by H. J. McCloskey in 1968 for the journal Question.  McCloskey is an Australian philosopher who wrote a number of atheistic works in the 1960s and 70s including the book God and Evil (Nijhoff, 1974). In this article, McCloskey is both critical of the classical arguments for God’s existence and offers the problem of evil as a reason why one should not believe in God.

In the article “ On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey attempts to inform his readers that the belief in atheism is a “much more comfortable belief” by effectively using a disdainful rhetoric towards theists and their faith. McCloskey delves into both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, which within he criticizes the arguments and to further his argument against theism, he also presents the Problem of Evil and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of universe. What will be displayed in this essay are the counter-arguments to McCloskey’s criticisms and the attempt to discredit his claims that regard the “comfortable” position that lies within atheism and its arguments.

In 1968 H.J. McCloskey wrote an article for the journal Question called “On Being an Atheist.” He presents three arguments for why his belief in atheism is more comforting than theism. He regards the arguments as “proofs” and intends to prove the inadequacy of each proof. By comparing the three proofs separately and then together he is able to provide different angles which enables new thoughts. While the proofs don’t stand strong by themselves the three together persuade the argument that there is a specific Creator, or Christian God. As a Naturalist struggles without explanation McCloskey struggles to comprehend the reason so many put their faith in someone they can’t fully understand. Through evaluating each proof thoroughly McCloskey is

This essay will be examining the key arguments for the existence of God, in order to discuss the claim that “it is wrong to believe in anything without sufficient evidence”- with reference to the non-existence of God. It will be exploring both a priori and an a posteriori argument for the existence of God. It will solely be concentrating on the Theological argument, Cosmological argument and the Ontological argument, in order, to analyse their significance and contribution in vindicating the claim for the existence of God. The essay will begin by providing a clear philosophical characterisation of the God of Classical Theism, in order to accurately evaluate the arguments for his existence. The essay will explore varying interpretations

Christians believe in a God who is Omni benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Since there is evil in the world atheist believe one or all of the following: God is not good and therefore responsible for the evil in the world, he is not omniscient and did not know what would happen, he is not omnipotent and couldn’t prevent evil, or he does not exist. This research paper will discuss the three arguments for the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument, The Syllogism Argument, and The Moral argument.

Theists and atheists have debated the existence of God for eons. Is there a God? If there is an all-powerful, omniscient being of sorts, then what proof do we have that he exists? If God does exist then why is there so much evil in the world? Why do innocent people suffer? Such questions may never be answered definitively. In the article “On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey presents some arguments made by theists in favor of the existence of God and then proceeds to debate those arguments from an atheistic perspective. The arguments discussed include the cosmological argument and the teleological argument. McCloskey also discusses the problem of evil and how it can serve as evidence that God does not exist. McCloskey offers some thought-provoking and opinions in his article, but they do not serve to completely discredit the arguments and ideas that theists present to favor the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent God.

My paper scrutinizes numerous logical disputes for and alongside the presence of God. I shall argue that there’s no adequate evidence or inclusive arguments for the existence of God. It is grounded on the views of certain great philosophers and scientists of all of mankind.

In this essay I will be discussing the controversial topic of God’s existence. I will be weighing up the facts and making a decision when I conclude my essay. People take things like nature, miracles and your conscience and say it proves that God is real. On the other hand people believe that the Big Bang made nature, miracles are fabricated or are the work of scientists and doctors and your upbringing gives you a conscience. It is up to you to decide what you believe but I am sure that this essay will help you to decide which side you will support.

An argument presented to challenge the existence of God titled “The argument of unbelief,” concludes that because there are people who do not believe in God, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist. The argument is presented as such; God does not exist. If God exists, he is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Yet God is not omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. If God was truly omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then the world would not contain non-belief. Despite all of this, the world does contain non-belief. In other words, not everyone on earth believes in the existence of God, given our definition of God, this becomes problematic.

What is God? Simply we can say that god is our creator, he is the one that created this universe and all the living beings. He is almighty and has knowledge of everything. But for decades, there has been different arguments for explaining the theory of god’s existence. Although different religions might see god in different perspectives, the main concept of god is almost the same in every religion. God is a fragment of our belief (Fénelon, François de Salignac de La Mothe-). We are a very curious species. We want to define everything by logic. It's not just this decade, mankind has been looking for logical explanations of various events since its dawn. Therefore, the biggest mystery or question that comes to our mind is "who created this world and all the living beings in it?" Thus, emerged the concept of God. People started believing that we were created by a superior being, and different religions were built around this concept. In this paper, we will discuss various arguments surrounding the existence of God.

H. J. McCloskey is the author of the short article “On Being an Atheist”. He has also written many more books on the support of atheism. For this essay we will be looking at his article “On Being an Atheist”. In his article, McCloskey examines many Christian arguments for the existence of God. McCloskey not only says that Christians are wrong in using these arguments but he critically analyzes them from the view point of a devout atheist. While H. J. McCloskey gives his strong beliefs on the existence of God and reason behind evil being in the world, a Christian can still stand firm in their beliefs because of supporting evidence.

Throughout the course of this essay we shall examine two of the major philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The arguments that we are going to focus on shall be the Design argument and the Ontological argument. We shall compare, evaluate and discuss both the Design (or teleological) argument for the existence of God and the Ontological Argument for the existence of God, as well as highlighting philosophical criticisms of both theories too. By doing so, we shall attempt to draw a satisfactory conclusion and aim gain a greater understanding of the respective theories and their criticisms of each theory.