Theist Arguments Against God

This argument is often considered as the most powerful and convincing argument against theism. John Stott stated that it “undoubtedly constitutes the single greatest challenge to the Christian faith…” (Listi 2007). According to Australian philosopher J. L. Mackie, the “problem of evil” proves religious beliefs to be “positively irrational” (Mackie 1955). Seeing that it is this very argument that the atheists themselves consider to be their greatest proof against God’s existence, and it is also

The mystical world has suddenly becomes more philosophical. Nowadays, people argue that it is impossible to prove existence of anything. Even more, some philosophers delivered great speeches and wrote books to prove that 1+1=3, and the misconception in mathematics. Bertrand Russell delivered a lecture named “Why I Am Not a Christian” in March 6, 1927. In this essay, he made many criticisms against Christianity and questioned the existence of God. He presented many ideas about the fallacy inside of Christianity. Bertrand Russell’s argumentation and logic in the first-cause argument are inconsistent because there can’t be infinite cause of one thing and God is a mystical figure, therefore his cause is unknowable, so Russell’s argument is uncertain.

The famous William Paley has a different ontological argument within his text Natural Theology. The title of the reading gives insight to the theory, which focuses on something called natural design. The writing is based on an intricate and extensive analogy between the man made and the natural. For instance, Paley describes a man made watch in great detail. This intense detail sets the notion that each piece must have been put in place by someone, whom we can infer is a watchmaker. He then compares this to the intricacy of nature, which must have been made by a supreme diety. Such complexity could not have come about by chance. Only the most

But since evil exists, no such being exists. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. Atheists believe this to be a problem because they say that the first and second premises contradict each other, therefore proving the existence of God false. God, as we know it, is a perfectly good God. Since this God is perfectly good and all-powerful, then we assume he would eliminate evil whenever/wherever it is present. While this does hold a strong standpoint against theists, they can come back with an argument that basically states that evil can be allowed if it gives way to the opportunity of a greater good coming from that

The Evidential Problem of Evil was first raised by the contemporary American philosopher William Leonard Rowe. Unlike the Logical Problem of Evil, the argument claims that it’s not the mere existence of evil that is problematic to the theistic world but it is the amount of pointless and useless evil that poses a threat to God’s existence. Before delving into Rowe’s argument, it is necessary to clarify some of the terms used. The term “God” refers to a divine entity that is all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful while a “theist” is a person that believes in such a God and an “atheist” is a person that rejects the existence of such a God (355). So with the terms clarified, Rowe presents his argument as follows: i. “There exist instances of intense

The problem of evil is honestly one of the greatest obstacles to believe of the existence of God. Their are times I sit and think of all the suffering in the world, and wonder if whether it is caused by mans inhumanity to one another or natural disasters. Though I can honestly say I find it hard to believe in a God at times. Then again, I think there comes a time when some people feel the same way.

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 worldview I chose was Christianity. I started out answering yes to the first few questions saying that I believe that there are truths out there that remain true despite of what others think, that it’s possible to know what is true, and that there are things that are objectively good and bad. The next question asked me if there was more than one valid religion and I answered no because I believe that there is only one way to heaven. These questions lead me the important question of “is there a God?” Answering yes to this question categorized me as a Theist worldview which means that I believe that there is a God. The next few questions asked about the character of God. I answered the questions saying that I believe that God has emotions

In addition, the argument succeeds in showing that even though atheist believes that God does not exist because he allows evil and suffering. The theist response to the problem of evil makes one understand that God gives one the power of free will to make decision on their own, he allows people to exercise their free will. The free will illustrates that God allows evil for the sake of human free will. The concept implies that an omnipotent God does not assert its power to intervene in choice. Evil occurs because God does not want to compromise this free will be preventing evil. He could not eliminate evil and suffering without eliminating the greater good of having created beings with free will.

Therefore, God does not exist as an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient being. ”(104). I think that the problem of evil is not something that destroys theistic religions. I think that the problem of evil helps theistic religions. People have made their own ideas on the problem of evil such as the Augustine Theodicy, Inenaean Theodicy, and free will defence.

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

I think the most common fallacy that christians commit when arguing is confusing ''Spinoza's god'' with the ''christian god''. Many apologists do this on purpose, and it is dishonest. For example, they'd be arguing in favor of Spinoza's god and how we [atheists] cannot disprove it, and somehow they think that they can use the same argument to defend the christian god, and win the debate.. NO, NO, NOPE! Let me explain: first of all they're right, I cannot disprove spinoza's god (the god of deists). Still, I think there's no good reason to believe in it, but to be honest, I wouldn't even be openly atheist if everyone were deist. Spinoza's god is quite different from the christian god, first of all, S.G. is an it, not a he. It's just an unconcious

The problem of evil is a highly contested argument in the Philosophic community. It has been a point of contention between atheists - people whom do not believe in the existence of a God - and theists - people whom do believe in the existence of a God. The formalised version of the problem is that: If God exists then he must be the all-knowing – omniscient, all-caring – omnibenevolent – and all-powerful – omnipotent – creator of the world. But, because of all of the evil – anything that causes death and/or destruction and/or devastation – in the world then how can God be all of these things? And thus there is no being that is all of these things, thus there is no God. There are three main objections to this problem: that God’s methods are

Atheism and Theism already had a long history of debate even up to date. Faith and reason are always used in the debate of proving whether there is a God or if there is not. Faith which can also be associated with theology can acquire the truth by receiving a revelation from what they have faith in while reason can also be parallel to science that will make us ourselves find out about the truth. The Atheist response to the Theist is that God does not exist because science can explain the cosmos without him while the Theist response is that Science affirms that the finely-tuned cosmos was created out of nothing. Science is an experimental process that can be used by humans

The question of God's existence has been debated in philosophy to great lengths. E.K. Daniel has listed all common philosophical arguments for the existence of God in his essay "A Defense of Theism", consisting of The Ontological Argument, The First-Cause Argument, The Argument of Contingency, The Design Argument, The Moral Argument, The Argument from Religious Experience, and The Natural Law Argument (p. 260). These arguments are familiar to any basic student of philosophy, along with the critiques that have been raised by philosophers such as Ernest Nagel in his essay "The Case for Atheism" (p. 274-283). These arguments have almost reached a virtual impasse, since there seems to be as much rational proof against the existence of God as there is fervor to believe in God. K.D. Ellis states this by saying "They may offer some support for the plausibility of the belief in a god, but they are not sufficiently strong enough to compel our assent to the conclusion that a god exists" (p. 297). This difference of perspective results in theism, atheism and agnosticism.