Existence of God Argumentative Paper Essay Example for Free

Existence of God Argumentative Paper Essay There are many different types of arguments for the existence of God. With each argument there is a conception presented of God. For each argument there are different approaches. I will be focusing on the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments. Teleological Arguments are known to be arguments from divine, arguing from order in the universe to the existence of God (1).With the ordering of the universe, created by an intelligent being, they hold that it is ordered towards a purpose or an end. The Cosmological Argument â€Å"is the argument that the existence of the world or universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it. It is a first caused argument where the existence of the universe, the argument claims, stands in need of explanation, and the only adequate explanation of its existence is that it was created by God† (1). Behind this argument, it holds that though the universe still needs explanation for its existence, the existence of God Himself does not. In the article McCloskey is critical of these arguments for God’s existence supporting his stance by offering the problem of evil as reasoning to not believe. He believes the belief in the existence of God is not a source of strength and security (2). However, if we are to use the Cumulative Case approach we can have successive truths. This case cumulates the Cosmological, Teleological, as well as, the Moral Arguments together. It gives us the conclusion of a personal, moral, intelligent creator of the universe as the best explanation for the universe we experience (3). McCloskey maintains that the Teleological Argument is not satisfactory and that it can be rejected simply by rejecting its premise. The premise holds that there is in fact evidence of purpose and design. McCloskey says though, that there were many things that were considered evidence or proof, prior to evolution, but those very things are now not being considered as so. Thus, in order to be a proof, there has to be given indisputable examples. Given that the Teleological Argument, presenting disputable examples, says McCloskey, there is no proof. There can be no form of argument with evidence of an intellectual design and/or designer. I would have to argue with McCloskey by using the â€Å"fine-tuning argument.† Within the universe is nothing short of precision, not only of natural laws, but the beginning stages and state of the universe. These both are pointers to an intelligent Creator. The universe is finely-tuned maintaining physical constants of nature (5).The strength of gravity should be considered. With the occurrence of the Big Bang. The gravity had to have precision because even with a little more force used on either side, it would not have occurred as the Big Bang, but the Big Crunch. Even with the slightest change in gravity, it could change the world into something completely other than what we know. That which is being offered as evidenced cannot be questioned. If we were to give to evolution as truth, there is still no grounds for believing it is true. It does nothing but in the end support the theist position, and shows that evolution needs teleology. McCloskey’s main objection to theism is the presence of evil in the world, â€Å"No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was unavoidable suffering or in which his creatures would(and in fact could have been created so as not to) engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons† (1). With this problem on McCloskey’s mind, he holds it to the theists. He still wonders how the theist does not take this to mind seeing that it goes against the perfection of the divine purpose. There can be no grounds in a belief of a perfect being. Even if all reason was thrown out, he says the theist at best could only present a pool of beings full of â€Å"concern, dismay, and anxiety, rather than comfort and security† (1). There is a logical problem of evil and there is logical inconsistency when there is both the existence of God and of evil. The atheist holds that there is severe contradiction between claiming God is good, yet evil exists. Mackie, an atheist, says the contradiction does not arise immediately; to show it we need some additional premisesthese additional principles are that good is opposed to evil, in such a way that a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can, and that there are no limits to what an omnipotent thing can do. From these it follows that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the propositions that a good omnipotent thing exists, and that evil exists, are incompatible(8). There exists two kinds of evil. There is â€Å"human evil,† and â€Å"natural evil† in which atheist claim are both forms of needless suffering. The logical problem of evil claims the â€Å"tension† between simultaneously having evil in the world, while also having a perfect God. This would without a doubt be a logical contradiction according to the atheist. There is also the evidential problem of evil. With this claim, there is not contradiction, but the fact that evil exists, if give grounding evidence for being able to reject that God is all-powerful. It is a weaker version of the former, and claims that it is highly unlikely that an all-perfect God exists. Plantinga responds with trying to defend that it is reasonable to believe in God, even without evidence. His position is kn own as â€Å"Reformed Epistemology†. In order for his view to hold he would have to reject the Evidentialist Credo., which he claims rests on Classical Foundationalism. This led him to his positive view, or â€Å"Reformed Epistemology.† This holds that a belief in God is â€Å"properly basic.†Some object to these claims, saying that evil is logically required for good and is needed for us to see the good. Evil is a means and will cause good. There is given the â€Å"free will† defense that is meant to try and answer the problem of evil. Either this would come about by humans free will resulting in a greater good and that evil is ascribed the humans and not God. However, those who oppose this, bring up the issue of natural evils. Mackie stands his ground that God should have given human beings free will in such a way that we always chose the good. The atheist propose God did not create men to choose between right and wrong, and that God is morally inconsistent. In response, the free will theodicy attempts to defeat the former by claiming the suffering of the innocent is justified because of the existence of free will. We as humans have misused our free will, thus what is known as ‘moral evil.’ Other sufferings from evil come from the natural evils. While McCloskey challenges the free will defense, Plantinga proposes the law of non-contradiction. He argues for there could be logically possible affairs whereby God would be unable of creating a world of both evil and autonomous humans (9). Evans puts it simply, â€Å"It does not seem to be true that a good being always eliminates evil as far as it can. What is true, perhaps, is that good being always eliminates evil as far as it can without the loss of a greater good or the allowance of a worse evil† (1). McCloskey objects to the cosmological argument claiming, â€Å"mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being†(1). There has been great objection to this however because of the fact of contingent objects. God is the â€Å"first cause,† the one who began it all. Because there is not explanation for contingent beings, if God is a necessary being, He is the necessary cause of the existence of creation and we as beings. God has no cause, otherwise He would not be God. It is the very existence of the world that implies the existence of God. The â€Å"laws of nature† imply the existence of a lawgiver, God. This position was held by Aristotle, holding firmly against the possibility of infinite regress. The argument from contingency suggests that it is possible the universe might not have existed, thus needing explanation of why it does in fact exist. In essence, it must have a cause. This leads to the belief in â€Å"necessary being,â⠂¬  meaning a being that needs no explanation. The temporal cosmological argument holds that the beginning of the universe was either caused or uncaused. However, objectors to this say we cannot actually claim whether the universe â€Å"had to exist.† Also, a â€Å"necessary being† comes into question. The refuters say this line of argument does not give enough explanation of why there could not be more than one cause. There is no ground for putting God as the first cause or prime mover. Time and causality as we know it cannot be grounds for explaining the beginnings of the universe. However, those objecting to McCloskey, hold if there were a being like the universe, then he would exist in time, thus he himself came into existence. But, the ultimate cause must not have come into existence. For it to be an ultimate cause, the ultimate Creator must be outside of time. (10).What McCloskey fails to realize, is that not every argument is going to capture every aspect of God. There are many different arguments that go abo ut doing that. If God does not exist, then all has no hope of immortality. Life, the world, and everything in it is meaningless. There would be no purpose or significance to anyone or anything. This leaves us with no ultimate meaning without immorality and God. Would we be able to say there was any purpose or meaning to someone who lived just to die? To be born just to pass out of existence? Lane says that it is not just each individual person that is headed towards the grave, but the universe itself is headed for extinction. This all in all is hopeless. Dying man, in a dying world. If this is the case, the small details in life do not matter, it does not make a difference. Our behaviors, our choices do not matter. Dotoyevsky said â€Å"If there is no immortality then all things are permitted† (11). Without God, there is no accountability, morality, or sense of right and wrong. Even more so, in a universe without God, good and evil do not exist (11). However, if we were to say there were no God, we would still be without purpose because we would just be accidental. We would just be accidents of chance. The only view that can save the human race from itself is a theistic view (11). The only thing going for an atheist is living with the fact of the absurdity of life. Such a view makes it impossible to live a fulfilling, happy life. For the atheist, absurdity of life and creating meaning for one’s life is a contradiction. A major disadvantage of atheism is that no one has hope or faith for reward of good or and punishment of evil. A believer’s hope is this, Christ. Ephesians 3:11 tells us that God had a purpose I mind before He created. Man within his own voluntary will would be able to love and choose God. Nature alone points to God. Humanity and the universe itself does not have to exist. Both are not self-existent but caused. There is no explanation for their existence. Within a Christian world view, life is not meaningless and pointless ending at the grave. We have hope in the resurrection and of eternal life. God and immortality are both necessary for a meaning full life (11). Bibliography 11- Craig, William Lane. The Absurdity of Life without God. In Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, by William Lane Craig, 71-90. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2008. 1-Evans, C. Stephen, and R. Zachary Manis. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009. 8- Kunkle,Brett. â€Å"The Logical Problem of Evil.† Truth Never Gets Old. April 21, 2009 2- McCloskey, H. J. On Being an Atheist. Question (1968): 63-69. 5- Biologos. â€Å"What is the â€Å"fine-tuning† of the universe, and how does it serve as a â€Å"pointer to God?† 9- http://kevinfannystevenson.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-being-theist-response-to-h-j.html 10- http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-argument.html

This is Your Brain on God :: Biology Essays Research Papers

"With all your science can you tell how it is, and whence it is that light comes into the soul?" ~ Henry David Thoreau Belief in God has long been held to be a superstition by the scientific community as the existence of such a higher power cannot be demonstrated through objective observation. While science is unable to prove whether or not God is real, the field of neurotheology has instead posed a new question that we can find answers to: is there activity in the brain specific to religious experience? Can science in fact shed light on Thoreau's question? Through the use of brain imaging technology, Dr. Andrew Newberg has conducted research in an attempt to find answers to these questions. The participants in his study were Buddhists well-versed in meditation. Newberg used a SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography) camera to make an image of the brain of an individual at the moment he reaches the climax of meditation. Such a picture would enable us to look at the brain as it "experiences God." The "peak" of meditation is clearly a subjective state, with each individual attaining it in different manners and having different time requirements. However, the sensation and meaning behind this moment is consistent among all who reach it. At the peak, the subjects indicate that they lose their sense of individual existence and feel inextricably bound with the universe. "There [are] no discrete objects or beings, no sense of space or the passage of time, no line between the self and the rest of the universe" (Newberg 119). As the river flowing east and west Merge in the sea and become one with it, Forgetting that they were ever separate rivers, So do all creatures lose their separateness When they merge at last . . . (Newberg 6-7) Newberg first took baseline images of the brains of the meditators to use as a standard for comparison (Newberg 5). It was important that these scans of the brain be taken while the subjects were at rest so that brain activity while one is simply relaxed could be differentiated from brain activity while one is having a spiritual experience. The baseline scans showed an "even distribution of activity throughout the brain," characterized by a large amount of activity in the posterior, superior parietal lobe and a moderate amount in the prefrontal cortex (Newberg 4).1 The subjects then meditated. When they reached the peak, they pulled on a string attached at one end to their finger and at the other to Dr.

Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice Essay

Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice is a manifestation of creativity in its bravest and most daring form. Never has a woman dared to write about the female specie in the form that Austen did; bold yet graceful and assertive but polite. Pride and Prejudice proves to be one of the timeless pieces of Literature because of its interesting content that brings about new and substantial insight every time it is read. Perhaps one of Austen’s trademark in writing is the vividness of her description and the symbolism it has. In this paper, I would like to highlight how Austen carefully and vivaciously feast on the description of the home as a determining element to the establishment of her characters and how the plot would flow. It is interesting to note that she was very careful and detailed about her descriptions yet was able to leave rooms for curiosity and imagination. The house of the Bennets is more than just a structure but a fertile ground planted with many insightful details that will bring life and color to the characters thus heightening the relationships of people and events. In the house of the Bennets, only the father is male. The rest of the members were female. This alone was enough to spark intrigue and controversy in the novel. Jane Austen lived in a time where women are treated as second- class citizens. In the house, quantity-wise, the females are more dominant, yet the father holds the power not only within the halls of their house but in the decisions made by his wife and daughters. This tells us that in the house of Bennets, no matter how many female members there were, the male member will always have the supremacy. This is also true in the Regency Society as male dominance is seen and observed everywhere. â€Å"Compared with some families, I believe we were; but such of us as wished to learn, never wanted the means. We were always encouraged to read, and had all the masters that were necessary. Those who chose to be idle, certainly might. † Chapter 6, Volume 2. â€Å"In such cases, a woman has not often much beauty to think of. † Chapter 1, Volume 1 The four daughters were treated fairly and dearly. There were the gems of the house and the life of the family. In all fairness to Mr. And Mrs. Bennet, the daughters were raised well. They were given the best that their parents can give. It may not equal that of the society’s bourgeois, but it had to be given to Mr. And Mrs. Bennet that they tried, and that alone was enough. The ladies were beautiful, that’s undeniable. But among the four sisters, Elizabeth was the one outstanding everyone else in the book. Not only did she manage to make a mark in the novel, she is regarded as one of the most famous characters in English Literature. This was because Elizabeth showed remarkable attitude, her beauty rivals her personality. Not only did she possess the looks, she had the attitude that magnetizes people. But then, I perceive Mrs. Bennet as one of the most interesting characters in the novel as her desire to have her daughters marry rich men so to elevate their already degraded status in the society. Mrs. Bennet’s role in the novel can be interpreted as a wonderful mother wanting a bright future for her children but done in a negative way. This I would have to note that the daughters were perceived as objects that can be given away for material wealth. This is very rampant in many societies in the world, not only in the regency society. â€Å"Our habits of expence make us too dependant, and there are not many in my rank of life who can afford to marry without some attention to money† Chapter 10, Volume 2. Other issues explored was the idea that women are but appendages of men; that women were born to be accessories of the male specie as if there is supremacy in being the first one to be created. We have to admit that women who are physically attractive are most likely to become wives of rich and influential men because they see them as affirmation of their masculinity. This is a very abusive yet accepted fact in the society. Women become objects that can be bought at the right price and the saddest part is that some people actually accede to it wanting nothing to do about it. â€Å"Mr. Bennet, how can you abuse your own children in such way? Chapter 1, Volume 1. However, it is very positive to note that even at the darkness of such mad society, love finds its way. â€Å"I am excessively diverted. But it is so strange! † Chapter 15, Volume 3. I would have to say that Mr. Bennet and Elizabeth were the closest in the family and thus the most intelligent members of the household. This union of intellectual bond resulted to the education of Elizabeth’s character that she learned to gear away from how her mother wished her and her sisters to be. She was able to determine that there are more important things than money, that her love for Mr. Darcy should not be stained by the lust for money and power. Elizabeth was able to acquire the greatest kind of wealth possible for any woman that is having a man who would truly love her, embracing what she is and what she’s not. â€Å"I cannot believe it. Why should they try to influence him? They can only wish his happiness, and if he is attached to me, no other woman can secure it. † Chapter 1, Volume 2.

Humans Learn Ethics From Their Environment - 1597 Words

Humans Learn Ethics from their Environment There has been a huge debate throughout the years as to whether human beings are ethical by nature or whether ethics is acquired in other ways. Christian Keyser’s research has evidence showing that humans are ethical by nature; conversely the Milgram experiment propagates that humans are not ethical by nature. Humans learn ethics as a result of their genetic predisposition, as well as, environmental factors such as: culture, socialization, and nurturing. In order to understand if we are ethical or not, we need to understand the difference between being moral or ethical. Many people believe that being moral and ethical are the same thing, but these two terms are a bit different. Morality†¦show more content†¦One example of the cultural racism is the exercise from Jane Elliott. She is a former school teacher who created an exercise to show people that racism still exists in all different countries (Elliott, 2009). The exercise happened in the UK where people with brown eyes were superior and people with blue eyes were being discriminated against. During the exercise, the two out of thirty adults were against the situation and left. These two people were white. One of the men in the video stated that â€Å"the majority of the group is committed to what she wants to do and notably is the white members of the group who are uncertain about it† (Elliott, 2009). This shows that these white members grew up with the belief that racism does not exist, but in reality it does. Another example is that if you grow up in a family with strong political ties, then you will likely adopt those same values. If you live in a household with republican beliefs, then you are more likely to have the same republican views as your parents. According to Christian Keyser’s research, humans learn behaviors from watching others. Although this shows that humans are empathetic by nature, we should not assume that this mean s that humans are ethical by nature. Humans learn by watching their parents or guardians and learn how to react to certain situations. For example, if a child see’s that their parent is afraid of spiders, then they will pick up these