• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Explain the main challenges to the arguments for the existence of God

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Transfer-Encoding: chunked ´╗┐Explain the main challenges to the arguments for the existence of God (35) Society is becoming increasingly secular, and many view scientific proof with more regard than the traditional arguments for the existence of God. It has often been said that belief in God is, ?morally intolerable, intellectually superfluous and emotionally dispensable.? In examining challenges to the arguments for the existence of God, a good place to start is exploring the shortcomings of the teleological argument. The argument can be divided into two main sections that are closely interlinked: ?qua purpose? and ?qua reality.? Starting with qua purpose, this branch argues that everything in the universe was designed to fulfil a purpose. The other form, qua reality, suggests there is evidence for a creator in the regularity of the universe. Hume worked on his critique of the teleological argument for some 25 years, culminating in his book, Dialogues concerning Natural Religion. ...read more.

Middle

Some scholars have argued that Aquinas' arguments rest on assumptions that are no longer widely held, such as a hierarchy of causes. Additionally, if nothing can cause itself how can God be seen as an uncaused causer? Both Hume and Kant criticised the Cosmological Argument. Hume maintained that we have no experience of universes being made and it is simply not possible to argue from causes within the universe to causes of the universe as a whole. There is a logical jump which the argument fails to recognise. It is one thing to talk about causes that operate within the system of the universe, but it is an entirely different matter to speculate about whether the system as a whole is caused. Kant rejected the argument outright not only because he maintained that the idea of a ?Necessary Being? was incoherent but also because our knowledge is limited to the phenomenal world of space and time and it is not possible to speculate about what may or may not exist independently of space and time. ...read more.

Conclusion

Therefore he argues that we can understand a concept, but never truly ?know? the object. Therefore even though humans understand the concept of God, it does not mean they can ever claim to know that he exists. Russel and Hume built on these criticisms to claim that existence does not necessarily add anything to an object. For example, an imaginary hundred dollars consists of the same amount of dollars as a real hundred dollars. Ultimately, a belief in God will always be fundamentally routed in faith rather than philosophy. The arguments critiqued here are inductive, meaning they were intended by the arguer merely to establish or increase the probability of its conclusion (God exists). This is because both Aquinas and Anselm were writing primarily to justify the faith of those that are already theists and did not intent their arguments to convince atheists into conversion. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Describe the main strengths and weaknesses of the cosmological argument for the existence of ...

    first cause of which this cannot be said, then all the things which exist will only be caused by what shares with them the need to be accounted for with reference to a cause.43 The cosmological argument seems to be saying that there cannot be an infinite series of causes; that the buck, so to speak, stops somewhere.

  2. Compare and contrast arguments for and against belief in life after death.

    The reason for this being that if (as in this world) suffering and pain is random and universal then the whole point of an afterlife (to reward and punish) is negated. Furthermore if a person were to be 'cured' as it were, then they would have had a very real

  1. What are Mill’s four main arguments in defence of freedom of speech?

    it becomes dogma, that is, truth proclaimed from authority rather than a reasoned and argued truth. Mill's principal aim here is to overcome the notion that because an authority makes an assertion, be it Aristotle or a Papal Bull, it is ipso facto true.

  2. Introduction to Philosophy.

    > True Knowledge: (episteme) 1) Infallible - the senses are infallible but true knowledge isn't. 2) Of things that are - world can change but true knowledge is stable / does npt change. 3)It is what is - contrasting the fact that sense bring about change.

  1. The Metamorphosis: Existence.

    He does not share with the community for he ignores all women in which a relationship is likely to occur since it is not something he has the time for. This prevention to live the typical life is an awareness that Gregor truly does not know how to live.

  2. Outline the teleological proof of the existence of God

    Behe, a professor of science, said that the idea of our universe coming about purely from chance is a bit like "a whirlwind passing through a hanger full of scrap and forming a Boeing 747". P Johnson tried to develop a Design argument of his own.

  1. Proof and Probability in Arguing for God's Existence.

    If in rejecting the conclusion you can no longer retain all the premises, your argument is valid. A valid or sound deductive argument is one in which the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. (The terms 'valid' and 'sound' have the same meaning in this context.)

  2. Assess whether the cosmological argument proves the existence of God.

    that every event has a cause, and goes to claim that nothing can be the cause of its self. Then he says conceptualise of an order of causes which goes back infinitely with no first cause, which he goes on to reduces to absurdity by claiming that

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work