The Problem of Non-Belief

1. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the argument for the existence of God based on religious experience. (18) 2. ‘The argument merely indicates the probability of God and this is of little value to a religious believer.’ Discuss. (12)

One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this

Sir Thomas Aquinas and William Paley present two arguments for the existence of God. Aquinas defines God as omnibenevolent (all good) for his argument, and he continues in “The Five Ways” to present arguments to prove God’s existence (Rosen et al. 11). Paley, on the other hand, primarily defines God as a designer worthy of our admiration for his work (Rosen et al. 27). During class discussion, defining God involved three major qualities: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Both Aquinas and Paley are attempting to prove the existence of the (Christian) God associated with these qualities. Although Aquinas’s “Cosmological Argument” and Paley’s “Argument from Design” have different premises, both have a similar logical gap in their

ABSTRACT: Charles S. Peirce sketches "a nest of three arguments for the Reality of God" in his article "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God." I provide careful analysis and explication of Peirce's argument, along with consideration of some objections. I argue that (1) there are significant differences between Peirce's neglected argument and the traditional arguments for God's existence; (2) Peirce's analysis of the neglected argument into three arguments is misleading; (3) there are two distinct levels of argument that Peirce does not recognize; and (4) it is doubtful whether the argument meets all the criteria set by Peirce himself.

The argument against the existence of God is incompatible with the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God.

The problem of the existence of evil in this world is a debate that seems to have no clear end in sight. It has stumped many eager, young philosophers and lead many to atheism. I think similarly though, that it has the potential to strengthen the deist’s belief if properly answered. Antony Flew writes an interesting paper attempting to use this line of argument to disprove the existence of a god. His main premise is that there is no direct evidence showing that God has significantly impacted the world. I believe that this premise is false, and therefore that his argument is invalid. God does significantly affect our life on this Earth, even if it is not appreciated by all. In addition to this, Flew’s statement that there is no support for Christian

This paper also aims at discussing three criticisms of the aforementioned argument before making an assessment of the value of the argument for belief in God. Thus, whether the argument is convincing or not. Eventually, a conclusion shall be drawn concerning

In this paper, I am going to present an objection to the “divine argument” explained above. An obvious objection to this argument is that it begs the question of its readers, as it forces them to accept the fact that God exists. If one does not accept this fact, then the entire argument is rendered unusable. However, this objection is, quite frankly, boring, and so I shall attempt to give a more nuanced objection. I believe that line 3, which discusses how nobody can change the past, is actually false. Additionally, the inference from premise 7 to the conclusion is false, which renders the argument invalid.

Geach believes that the attribute of almightiness to God is necessary for a traditional belief in God. Whether or not God can do everything is different though. (p. 7). No creature can compete with God, even unsuccessfully. God is the source of all power and nobody can deceive God or frustrate him; there is no question to God’s trying to do anything or failing (p. 8).

Furthermore, an in-depth version of the argument I have proposed can help strengthen this reasoning. This version of my argument starts with the basic definition of God that has been established earlier in the paper:

The argument between the theistic and atheistic viewpoint has been and always will be relevant. The relevance of this argument continues to carry over throughout generations because, as humans, we all have the desire to know the answers to the questions presented about life. We all want to be able to answer the hard questions, is God real? If the answer is yes, how did we come to that conclusion? H.J. McCloskey is the author of an article titled, “On Being an Atheist,” within this article he argues against the theistic viewpoint in hopes of shaking the theists conclusion that there is a divine creator. He answers the questions about God and his relevance to life by saying there is no God. He came to this conclusion by determining that if

One should recognize this and work to combat their philosophies. Irrational belief number six is that dangerous things should be constantly worried about. Intense anxiety prevents proper assessment of the dangers. When plausible, dangers should be faced to eradicate fears. The seventh irrational belief is that is is better to avoid life’s responsibilities and difficulties. On the contrary, facing these leads to a sense of achievement and an enjoyable existence. The eighth irrational belief is, one must depend on others in life, which is untrue because one must learn to be capable to survive individually. The ninth irrational belief is that one’s past defines their present. This belief hinders productive change. The tenth irrational belief is that one should be horrified by other’s disturbances; other’s people’s problems have little or nothing to do with another individual. Irrational belief number eleven is that there is a right and perfect solution to every problem. Perfection in this world has not been agreed on and searching for perfection limits possible solutions.

The three views that the author says modern theology takes on divine-human relation are: (1) those who deny that we can have a personal relationship with God at all, (2) those who say we can have a relationship with God, but it cannot be reciprocal and (3) others who say that God is necessarily dependent on his creatures for what He wants to achieve. After discussing the rationales in support of these views, he moves on to discuss the next

Having skepticism is a sign of precaution, when receiving information for any source of media, companies and individual one should investigate the data. Comparing and contrasting the information will reveal if the information given is exact or with a personal bias. A person agenda varies, it relies on who and what is expecting from the data given. Research is inevitable to ensure one is receiving accurate information. Pedro, you presented a great analogy regarding statistic information.

Rationality is a tough concept that is actually based upon simple instincts that every human possesses. When rationality comes into the same discussion as religion, the concept becomes even harder to justify. Rationality is defined as "the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic” (Rational, 2017). Is believing in the existence of God in accordance with being deemed as reasonable or logical? According to Pascal in his work “The Wagner”, believing in God is entirely reasonable since “If you gain, you gain all, if you lose, you lose nothing.” (Pascal 1910/2016: 51) Although Pascal’s reasoning may seem simple and easy to disprove due to the possibility of there being no God and no enteral life after death. If this is the