Arguments Of Philosophical And Theological Genre

In his article “The Ethics of Belief (Clifford, 1877) W.K. Clifford sought to argue that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (as cited on p190). The aim of this essay is to establish whether indeed this view offered by Clifford, when considering religious faith, is convincing. In order to do this I will consider the arguments that Clifford put forward, including that which to believe anything based upon insufficient evidence always does harm and so is wrong. Such a statement is in direct opposition to those religious believers who regard their blind faith as a virtue and for whom evidence is something that is

The debate of the existence of God had been active since before the first philosopher has pondered the question. Anselm’s Ontological Argument was introduced during the 11th century and had stood deductively valid until the 18th century. Then there are the arguments to aim disprove God, such as the Argument from Evil.

Although many cannot articulate their reasons for believing in the existence of God, their faith is nonetheless definite

Aquinas says we experience causality Nothing is the cause of itself causes are other than their effects. There cannot be an infinite regress of caused causes. If there were an infinite regress, the effects we experience here & now would not exist. Therefore, there must be some first cause and this we call "God." There is also the law of argument by design, we naturally work towards a goal, we also lack the knowing of the outcome, but we reach our goal by being pointed in the direction, therefore there is an intelligent being pointing us in the direction and that would be proof of “God”.

In Kelly James Clark’s Article “Without Evidence or Argument”, Clark argues that belief in God, does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. Clark’s argument is against W.K. Clifford’s article “The Ethics of Belief”, in which Clifford claims that everything must be believed only on the basis of sufficient evidence (139). Throughout Kelly Clark’s article he states many things that support his conclusion of belief without evidence or argument, however, my paper will only discuss what Clark says on p.139 starting with the paragraph “The first problem with Clifford’s…” and the following paragraph, ending with the words “...to see why.”

The question of God’s existence has been pondered by humans for centuries. There are an infinite number of different opinions, arguments, and ideas favoring for or against the idea of God. Personally, I strongly believe in God not only due to my religious affiliation, but also because of my own opinions, ideas, and experience. To begin with, the complexity of Earth and the life that has formed upon it cannot be based just on luck or chance. I believe that ultimately God, as a power, rather than a mystical being is the one created and controls the universe. Although the God and his authority are not entirely comprehensible by humans, it’s our faith as worshiper that eventually lead us to a greater understanding.

The existence of God is something that most people take for granted. In your upbringing you are taught that God is the most supreme being, the creator of all, infinite and eternal. Taking into account the type of society in which we live in and the fact that it is usually our parents who teach us about God, most people do not even question his existence. Many philosophers who believe in God have tried to prove his existence using many different types of argument. One of these arguments is the ontological argument. It was made famous by the 11th century philosopher Anselm. The ontological argument has three properties: 1. It is an a priori argument. 2. It treats existence as a property. 3. It is

However, to the point of God actually existing I am skeptical. Many people turn to the Bible to bring proof to the table of any doubters like myself. While the bible brings forth some interesting facts that we all would like to believe, it does not necessarily make them true. The bible is not evidence itself because it cannot be confirmed as it is thousands of years old. Who knows, it could have been mistaken to be a bible when it was really just a compilation of short stories over a long period of time. Another claim that tries to prove god is real, is Decartes 3rd Meditation which states; If we have a clear and distinct idea of god, than a cause must be as great as its effect this idea cannot come from an imperfect thing like myself. Therefore, God must exist.(Pojman128) This would be true if the first two points could not be challenged. I can simply deny ever having the idea of god, and no evidence is provided for the second idea it is just an assertion that we, apparently an imperfect thing can ever think of something that we are not, which is simply not true. Perfection is based on the eye of the beholder, we all have different ideas of perfection, whether it is great being of pureness, greatness or whatever the case may be. I also choose bring about Bertrand Russell’s argument that since God is all-loving, all-knowing, and

“When you believe in a thing, believe in it all the way, implicitly and unquestionable.”

Deductive reasoning entails the argument in which the hypothesis is true and, therefore, the conclusion remains to be true. This argument follows a correct logical form whereby if the hypothesis is true then its conclusion is valid and if the premises are untrue then the conclusion is invalid. Louis Pojman explicates that deductive reasoning preserves the truth, and the arguments are of soundness while;

The existence of God has been in question for as long as mankind has existed and thought logically. Many questions have plagued the human mind in regards to God, and there have been many arguments drawn with the hopes of proving the existence of a supreme being whom we know as God. The “God” question has been presented to every individual at some point in their lives. It is a topic that will bring forth never-ending questions and an equal amount of attempted answers. Many philosophers have formulated different rationales when examining the topic of God, some of which include how the word itself should be defined, what his role is in human existence, whether or not he loves us, and ultimately, if he even exists at all. Mankind cannot

1. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the argument for the existence of God based on religious experience. (18) 2. ‘The argument merely indicates the probability of God and this is of little value to a religious believer.’ Discuss. (12)

With the passage of time, there also have been scriptures appearing that support the existence of God. Stories, events and many supernatural occurrences that is beyond human’s intellect. The Myths of Fire, Water, Earth and Air were famous for their supernatural existence in the Roman Era. Before the Ancient Greek religion turned into mythology, existence of God was well practiced by the Greek people. Homer, a famous Greek writer, writes in the ‘Odyssey’ about how if man does not follow the God and believe in them, then man will fall and be doomed. The Greeks were a very religious civilization. They showed that one could believe in the gods without having solid, concrete proof. Looking at this religion we can see that God does exist.

The existence of God is a question that has troubled and plagued mankind since it began to consider logic. Is there a God? How can we be sure that God exists? Can you prove to me that He is real? Does His existence, or lack thereof, make a significant difference? These loaded questions strike at the heart of human existence. But the real question is, can we answer any of them? These questions are answered in the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal and St. Anselm of Canterbury. For thousands of years, theologians, philosophers and scientists have been trying to prove or disprove God’s existence. Many, including the three mentioned above, have strong proofs and theories that attempt to confirm God’s existence. Although, without any scientific evidence, how can they be entirely sure? “Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs,” (Kreeft). Gravity similar to God’s existence ; it cannot be seen nor explained, yet it still exists. With faith, reason, understanding and even some math, God’s existence can be verified rationally.

The fields of philosophy and theology are often grounds of debate. While some hold these two to be relevant and dependent on each other, others find them to be completely independent of each other. In John D. Caputo’s work, Philosophy and Theology, he expresses his view of these fields as companions. Caputo states, “Think of philosophers and theologians as fellow sailors on [the] ocean,” depicting his view of the interdependence of these two fields (Caputo 69). Through his illustration we can find the influence philosophy and theology can have on each other in facilitating our toleration of such a mysterious future and world.