Argument Against Christianity

He states that since the series of dependent beings couldn’t be caused by any external or internal source, that it would have to be cause “absolutely by nothing”. He then states that this is a “contradiction to be done in time; and because duration in this case makes no difference.” He also states that it is a “contradiction to suppose it done from eternity.” Since the universe has parts that come into existence at one occasion and not another, it must have a cause. There could supposedly be an infinite regress of causes if there was evidence for such, but lacking such evidence, God must exist as the cause.

Todd C. Moody’s book “Does God Exist?” deals with a debate on God’s existence. This debate is done through a three-way dialogue between friends Sophie, David and Oscar. In the book, David defends God’s existence while Oscar defends the opposite position. Woody describes the burden of proof as being “on the person who claims anything that is either contrary to or beyond common sense,” (Woody 5). The idea of a God is indeed beyond common sense.

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.

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

The central problem of this paper that I am going to try to convince my atheist friend is that god existed. I will argue in favor of a higher being by first presenting and evaluating two argument that will be used to persuade my atheist friend. First I will explain Pascal’s argument. Second I will explain one of the arguments of Aquinas’s that is in favor of the existence of god. Then I am going to explain what’s the central difference between the two arguments is. I will conclude by stating whether I was successful in converting my atheist friend.

An age-old debate that has existed in religious studies concerns which argument for the existence of God is the strongest. The existence of God is pervasive throughout the world, although the means with which people attempt to prove His existence varying in significant (and sometimes contrasting) ways. Although there have been myriad methods for proving God's existence, a central dispute concerns whether or not to use a rational approach or a more Biblically-grounded approach. This paper examines three theories that are germane to the rational approach the Five Proofs issued by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, the central premise of St. Anselm's Proslogion, and Augustine's premise from his canonical text City of God. After discussing these three arguments, two Christological arguments are discussed, namely Richard Bauckham's thesis from God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (1999) and William Lane Craig's argument from "The Resurrection of Jesus" (Date Unknown). Following a description of these theories, this paper argues in favor of the rational approach because it is more systematic in its justification for God's existence.

The first step of the argument outlines the need for “ an adequate explanation of the unity of the system as whole, how each of the parts is correlated with the others to from reciprocal laws, and then connected with the whole (Clarke 224).” The universe is a complex system that demonstrates interacting parts whose actions are dependent on each other. The cause of the whole system must have come before all these parts and is independent of the system entirely. After considering, the complexity of manipulating interacting elements in such a vast system, the second step argues, “such a cause can only be one possessing intelligence (Clarke 225).” Organizing multiple elements to work together cohesively and adhere uniformly to the same set of laws not only on the individual level but also on the scale of the universe would require the perspective of a guiding agent. Clarke argues this guiding agent is God. However, biologists interpret evolution as the universe’s guiding agent. Clarke embraces evolution but he notices it’s limitation as a great play of chance over time. There must be a stable set of background laws to lay the foundation for evolution to play out. The intelligible designer created the stable guiding rules and then allowed evolution to shot chance into life, making it unpredictable. Clarke views God as the intelligent designer that brought unity to the

The Cosmological Argument as previously discussed, is the existence of the universe and “cosmos” is the direct suggestion that God exists. This can be and is often indicated as the “first-cause argument”. This is because they believe that God is the first reason for the cause of the existence of the universe. One of McCloskey first complaints is that people are not suitable to believe that the universe needs a cause. McCloskey finds this to be true simply because, it would require a root for the universe which in turn, would also obligate a source for God. He then continues to profess that even if the cosmological argument is able to facilitate us to hypothesize the existence of God, then there would be no reason to hypothesize that God has to be omniscient, omnipotent, and many more. There are living things in our world that have no clue how they came to be. Essentially everything that happens has to be caused by something, which would mean that the actualization of our universe has to be contingent on a cause. He also stated that he believes that the cosmological argument, “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause,“ (McCloskey, 51).

Most religious zealots have no doubt about who created and the source of the origin of the universe. The same is true of the existence of the omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresent God. Although God may not be seen or heard or touched, however; by faith, we believe of his majestic existence. His existence as God cannot be measured in terms of Gallup surveys or scientific proofs to show otherwise but “religious thinkers” according to James and Stuart Rachels have offered numerous thesis for the for the existence of God, starting with the argument from design, with its subtitles such as the wonders of nature; the “best-explanation arguments and the same-evidenced argument” (Rachels). In either of the cases, the conclusions drawn were similar in the sense that the universe was created by an intelligent designer.

His argument for God seems to give reasons that there is no evil in the world. He states that God is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, then he must have the ability to stop something bad happen and make the world become better. In most cases, there always have many evils happen such as murder, rob, rape, and stealing. If God does exist, he will not allow those evils and suffering happen because he wants everything to be good. While God doesn’t stop evils happen, so he urges that God is not existing in the world and the existence of God is only

He is the only possible answer who is powerful enough to create this law and order within nature. (Aquinas page 2 P2) Russell makes an argument against every point Aquinas makes and shows the flaws in Aquinas’ explanation. The counter argument that Russell makes to criticize Aquinas’ first argument simply points out the flaw left open with the initial argument of motion. In the first statement and reasoning that God exists, Aquinas explains that every change is caused by a previous change.

St. Anselm's Ontological Argument has remained one of the most widely-known arguments for a Christian God, as well as simply probably the most famous logical proof of all time, since its inception in the late 11th century. The economical proof uses deductive logic starting from basic given premises to lead the reader to what is meant to be the inevitable conclusion that God must, necessarily, exist. The argument's polished simplicity is both a point in favor and a problem, however, for it provides little explanation for its premises beyond what is to be assumed within the tight structural framework of Christian thought beneath which all medieval philosophy operated. Anselm's proof is a clever piece of logic, and an important one, but its

Alternatively, the theist's more typical assertion is that God does not have a creator. The assertion that there exists an entity who is the author of all things, should also be regarded with the distinction - other than himself. Secondly, the theist is not making the assertion that God is the inventor of prime numbers, interpropositional relations or concepts. Some concepts, notions or ideas exist as a direct result of a need that is simply based on logic. Things which exist as a matter of logical need do not typically exist in tangible form and that they exist cannot be the work of any creator; as they exist simply because they are (Robinson, 1963).

The second argument is for the notion that the existence of God can be demonstrated. It states that everything has a cause. He claims that by using the theory of cause and effect we can demonstrate the existence of God. If we say that every effect has a cause, we can go further and further to infinity. But because of our own logic, we know that this is not true. We know that it must end somewhere. That somewhere is a first cause, and that cause is God. This is very similar to the idea of the unmoved mover. He goes on to say that through the effects, we can demonstrate that God does exist, but we cannot know what God is like.

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