Against a deontic argument for God's existence

Sophia, 1990

Copleston and Russell debate

Religious Studies, 1993

Attempts have been made to prove God's non-existence. Often this takes the form of an appeal to the so-called Argument from Evil: if God were to exist, then he would not permit as much suffering in the world as there actually is. Hence the fact that there is so much suffering constitutes evidence for God's non-existence. In this essay I propose a variation which I shall call ‘The Argument from Non-belief’. Its basic idea is that if God were to exist, then he would not permit as much non-belief in the world as there actually is. Hence the fact that there is so much non-belief constitutes evidence for God's non-existence.

CENTRAL ASIAN JOURNAL OF LITERATURE, PHILOSOPHY AND CULTURE, 2022

The question of whether God exists has been the focus of discussions since the times immemorial. Numerous arguments have been provided by both sides of the discussion, each being rather impressive and logically coherent. In the text under analysis, both deductive and inductive reasoning is used to prove that God does not exist. For instance, the author uses an inductive line of reasoning quite successfully to prove their point. Particularly, the inductive argument is constructed by claiming that the life on Earth does not seem to be sustained by the presence of God. Therefore, God does not exist. To be more accurate, the author of the analysis points to the fact that people act in the way that does not imply that God exists. The pain that they inflict upon each other does not suggest that God is omnipotent and benevolent. Therefore, the author comes to the conclusion that God as a benevolent and omnipotent being as He is described in the Bible cannot possibly be a reality. Hence, using the principles of inductive reasoning, the author infers that God does not exist. The specified argument is partially in line with the STAR criteria. For instance, it is quite accurate and relevant since it uses the available evidence extensively and applies mostly recent information. However, the sufficiency of the analysis is questionable since the author does not embrace the concept of pain from a spiritual and Biblical perspective. Similarly, some of the information concerning the fact that the human race is doomed may be not quite typical. Therefore, some of the elements of the argument may be regarded as lacking consistency. Thus, the induction seems not quite strong, yet moderate. Hence, the argument is both considerably persuasive yet open to critique.

This paper has developed a debate about the existence of God. it has focused the vital arguments in favor of opposition to the existence of God.

Aquinas's Philosophy of Religion, 2014

Arguments based on Motion & Causality St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) argued that there must have been a first cause, an "unmoved mover" to begin all of the causal chains of events that go on around us. This First Cause could only be God. Therefore, God must exist. Problems: Misunderstanding of motion: If something remains in motion, Aquinas believed something outside of that object must be continuing to push it. But we now know that momentum can explain continued motion. An initial cause would not have to have the "God-making" properties (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence). Also, an initial cause would not have to be in existence now. Why not more than 1 initial cause? Why not an infinite sequence of previous causes (no beginning)? Why not uncaused events? The Design Argument Aquinas's version: 1. There exist many objects that act for an end or purpose. 2. Some of these objects do not have minds, so they could not have decided on their own to act this way. 3. Some being with a mind must have designed these mindless objects so that they act for an end or purpose. 4. Therefore, God must exist (and is this designer/creator). Act for an end = act so as to fulfill a purpose. E.g., A guided missile adjusts its behavior to fulfill a purpose, but does not have a mind. It can do so only because beings with minds (people) designed it to do this. Many objects (bacteria, trees, etc.) act for an end, but do not have minds. So, Aquinas says, they must have been designed. William Paley (1743-1805) says that when one finds a sophisticated system or mechanism, one automatically assumes that it has a designer. (Watches, etc. don't just come into existence by themselves or by accident.) The existence of sophisticated natural systems (eyes, ecosystems, etc.) indicates the existence of a designer. Only God can fill this description. David Hume's criticisms. In his Dialogues on Natural Religion, Hume challenges the design argument. The analogy between watches (which clearly have designers) and the universe is weak. Paley is ignoring many dissimilarities. o This is probably not a major flaw-all Paley needs is the fact that both systems are complex and fulfill a function. The Evolutionary Criticism: Paley was not aware of how powerful the evolutionary explanation is. It can account for the complexity and sophistication of natural biological systems without having to include God. Evolution is generally considered to be consistent with most religious doctrines regarding the origins of the Earth and the life upon it. Thus, the theory of evolution should not be regarded as somehow anti-theist.

Moses Adeleke Adeoye, 2020

Theological Studies, 2006