Logical Arguments Agains the Existence of God

• 

Arguments for and against the existence of God

John Bishop and Patrick Girard from the University of Auckland discuss deductive and non-deductive arguments for and confronting the being of God.

14.1

It's a nifty pleasure to introduce you to my colleague and good friend, John Bishop. John, yous're a philosopher of organized religion. Can you tell united states of america what philosophy of organized religion is about? Well, one thing philosophers of religion are very interested in is whether information technology's justifiable for people to commit themselves to the truth of their religious beliefs. And many philosophers would say that that'due south only justifiable if they've got proficient reasons for them. And in social club to have good reasons, they should accept arguments which show that their religious beliefs are truthful. And of course, when nosotros apply this to the religions that are founded on belief in God, it's all well-nigh arguments for and against God's being.

57.3

OK, then then how does the distinction between deductive and non-deductive arguments play out in this kind of context? Well, we find arguments of both types. Perhaps I can illustrate that, offset of all by thinking about arguments for God's existence. Now, one statement is chosen the cosmological argument. And there's a version of it that's recently been revived from mediaeval Islamic theology by the American philosopher, William Lane Craig. It'due south called the Kalam cosmological statement. And information technology's possible to state information technology very easily in standard form. Information technology goes like this– everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to be. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beingness.

111.9

And then what kind of claiming might one propose against this statement? Well, given that it's a deductive statement, i might question whether it actually is the case that everything– literally everything that begins to exist has a crusade of its being. Perchance that applies merely to things within the universe and not to the universe itself. So that's one possible challenge. Another possible challenge might be to say, well, yes, I think the argument does succeed. Just does it really institute the existence of God? The cause of the universe is something tremendous, but it does it have to be God? And actually, that gives me an opportunity to bring in a non-deductive argument, which is known as the fine-tuning statement.

158.5

The cardinal physical constants of the universe are within a very narrow range that is required if the universe is going to be capable of supporting life. The all-time explanation for this phenomenon is that those values were gear up by an intelligence who was acting for a purpose that required the beingness of life. And therefore, given that that is the best explanation, it is probably true that the universe has an intelligent designer. OK, and because it'southward a not-deductive statement, information technology leaves out the possibility that God may not be, I suppose. Because it's a not-deductive argument, information technology doesn't guarantee that God exists, because it allows us to say that it might, perhaps, be an amazing coincidence– a matter of chance.

223.8

And that is non ruled out by the argument. So that raises the question, are in that location are arguments against the existence of God? Aye, there certainly are. And we tin find examples amongst those kinds of arguments as the deviation betwixt deductive and non-deductive arguments. Now, i very common argument confronting the existence of God is the argument from evil. And it goes similar this– if God exists, God is both all powerful and perfectly good. If God is all powerful, God is able to prevent whatsoever evil he wishes to prevent. If God is perfectly skillful, God wishes to prevent any evil he tin preclude. Therefore, if God has both those properties, there is no evil. Just we know from experience that evil exists.

283.9

Hence, it follows that God does non exist. Theists, of class, theist philosophers have objected to this argument by saying it doesn't succeed, because it leaves out the possibility that God may exist prepared to cause or allow some forms of evil in society to accomplish really important goods that would not be achievable otherwise. Just that puts into doubt the deductive version for the argument from evil. That's right. So the atheist philosophers, even so, responded by saying, If an all-powerful and perfectly good God exists, there are no pointless evils. Probably, there are pointless evils. Therefore, probably there is no anointed and perfectly good God. Nosotros tin can find plenty of instances of evil which seem to be pointless. Similar what?

349.1

An case comes from an article by William Rowe that has been much discussed, is of a fawn who's caught in a woods fire and is desperately burned, merely takes a long time to die in desperation over several days from these burns. And certainly, when we consider an evil like that, it seems inconceivable to u.s. that information technology could have whatsoever purpose or signal that might justify information technology. Now, of class, nosotros tin can't admittedly rule out the possibility that it has some completely unknown purpose to united states of america. It's just on the basis of what nosotros know, it's very likely that it doesn't.

388.five

And that, then, gives us reason for saying that very probably, there are pointless evils, and therefore, very probably, a God who, if he existed would prevent pointless evils, doesn't exist. OK, so you've given us examples in the philosophy of religion for arguments both for the beingness of God and against the existence of God. And for each kind of arguments, we had deductive and non-deductive arguments. But I suppose information technology's not only for deep questions like the being of God that the distinction is important. Is that right? I think that is right.

428.4

I mean, what we've seen in philosophy of religion is that it's important for people to think advisedly about what they're trying to attain with their arguments, whether they're attempting to provide an argument potent plenty to guarantee the conclusion, or whether what they're trying to practise is provide bounds that will arrive cogent to think that the conclusion is probably, or highly probably, true. And I hold with you. I think that'south something that people ought to consider in many different contexts, not just in philosophy of religion.

In this video, John Bishop and Patrick discuss various arguments for and against the existence of God, with an emphasis on the distinction between deductive and non-deductive arguments.

This article is from the complimentary online

Logical and Critical Thinking

Created by

Our purpose is to transform access to education.

We offer a diverse selection of courses from leading universities and cultural institutions from around the globe. These are delivered one step at a fourth dimension, and are accessible on mobile, tablet and desktop, and so you tin fit learning around your life.

We believe learning should exist an enjoyable, social feel, and then our courses offer the opportunity to talk over what yous're learning with others equally you get, helping yous make fresh discoveries and grade new ideas.
You tin unlock new opportunities with unlimited access to hundreds of online short courses for a year by subscribing to our Unlimited packet. Build your cognition with peak universities and organisations.

Acquire more virtually how FutureLearn is transforming access to education

larsonerepaing00.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/logical-and-critical-thinking/0/steps/9147#:~:text=Now%2C%20one%20very%20common%20argument,any%20evil%20he%20can%20prevent.