He argued that it is possible for a being with maximal Argument about the exist of god to exist, so a being with maximal greatness exists in a possible world. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.
Thus, if the series of past events were beginningless, the present event could not have occurred, which is absurd. Hume attacks both the view of causation presupposed in the argument that causation is an objective, productive, necessary power relation that holds between two things and the Causal Principle—every contingent being has a cause of its existence—that lies at the heart of the argument.
An advantage of this alternative is that it fits better with our actual epistemic situation: But this cannot go on to infinitybecause then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand.
The fact that the events do not occur simultaneously is irrelevant. In a full explanation the causal factors—in scientific causation, causal conditions and natural laws; in personal causation, persons and their intentions— are sufficient for the occurrence of an event.
Belief in a god or gods, it seems, arises naturally the world over. For Craig, however, an actual infinite is a timeless totality that cannot be added to or reduced.
For example, even if life-hostile places vastly outnumber life-friendly places in our universe, we should not be surprised to find ourselves in one of the relatively few places that are life-friendly and seek an explanation for this finding, simply because—in virtue of being living organisms—we could not possibly have found ourselves in a life-hostile place.
If one identifies this designer with some supernatural agent or God, the inference from fine-tuning for life to the existence of a designer becomes a version of the teleological argument.
If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. For man naturally desires happinessand what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him.
To make this being palatable to theists, he offers that the argument be supplemented by other arguments, such as the teleological arguments, to suggest that the necessary being is the kind of being that satisfies theistic requirements. Plantinga, among others, points out that this may commit a quantifier mistake Plantinga And this seems to entail that x has the reason for its existence in its own nature.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist. If all we know about the world is that John Doe won a lottery and the only possible explanations for this observation are the Theistic Lottery Hypothesis and the Chance Lottery Hypothesis, then this observation provides some reason to prefer the former.
It is controversial, however, whether this idea can coherently be fleshed out in terms of any philosophical account of probability. A piland exists as an idea in the mind. For it is an article of faith that God exists. This second version appears to be less vulnerable to Kantian criticisms than the first.
If the existence of God can be proven, I think, then it is by arguments such as these. Small changes in this difference would drastically affect the stability properties of the proton and neutron, which are bound states of these quarks, or lead to a much simpler and less complex universe where bound states of quarks other than the proton and neutron dominate.
After noting that the probability of picking the Democrats 40 out of 41 times was less than 1 in 50 billion, the court legitimately made a design inference, concluding that "few persons of reason will accept the explanation of blind chance.
But it is clear that the mere fact that such a sequence is so improbable, by itself, does not give us any reason to think that it was the result of intelligent design. It was that piece of information, together with 1that enabled the court to justifiably conclude that the probability that an intelligent agent deliberately brought it about that the Democrats received the top ballot position 40 of 41 times was significantly higher than the probability that this happened by chance.
Others, however, contend that from the concept of a necessary being other properties appropriate to a divine being flow. Cory Juhl argues along independent lines that we should not regard fine-tuning for life as calling for a response.
Every culture has had its gods. There are a number of objections to the ontological argumentwhich many, though not all, accept as decisive.In these arguments they claim to demonstrate that all human experience and action (even the condition of unbelief, itself) is a proof for the existence of God, because God's existence is the necessary condition of their intelligibility.
Alvin Plantinga presents an argument for the existence of God using modal logic. One of the most fascinating arguments for the existence of an all-perfect God is the ontological argument. While there are several different versions of the argument, all purport to show that it is self-contradictory to deny that there exists a greatest possible being.
Thus, on this general line of. Here is nice little android app application that helps you explore the age-old question, "Does God Exist?" (Google play store link, or apk download link).It starts by asking you to consider what you mean by God, then presents a series of observations.
The existence of God is a subject of debate in the philosophy of religion and popular culture. A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of God can be categorized as metaphysical, logical, empirical, or calgaryrefugeehealth.com philosophical terms, the question of the existence of God involves the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the.
The ontological argument is an argument for God’s existence based entirely on reason. According to this argument, there is no need to go out looking for physical evidence of God’s existence; we can work out that he exists just by thinking about it.
None of the above arguments really prove that God exists. Some of the above arguments are very weak: appeals to personal experience, vicious circular reasoning, and appeals to a first cause.
While the facts are true, the arguments do not come close to proving the existence of the biblical God.Download