DOCSLIB.ORG

Philosophical Issues with Existence of God

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Philosophical issues with existence of God

Session Schedule

  • Session # Date / Time
  • Session Name
  • Brief Description

  • 1
  • Jan 24th – Sunday

2:00pm to 4:00pm
General Concepts & History of Philosophy
Understand what are the various belief systems. Historical Review of how Philosophy evolved

  • 2
  • Jan 31stth – Sunday

2:00pm to 4:00pm

  • General Philosophy an Introduction
  • General Introduction into what is the branch of

Philosophy and then specifically review religious philosophy

  • 3
  • Feb 7th – Sunday

2:00pm to 4:00pm

  • Philosophy of Religion
  • How philosophy is handled and presented in the

various MAJOR religions – Abrahaministic & Eastern

4

5

Feb 14th – Sunday 2:00pm to 4:00pm

  • Logic & Logical Fallacies
  • Understanding Logic and understanding how to

identify fallacies in arguments

Feb 21st – Sunday 2:00pm to 4:00pm

  • Arguments for the Existence of God
  • Theological arguments; Ontological Arguments and

Teleological Arguments for the Existence of God

6

78
Feb 28th – Sunday 2:00pm to 4:00pm
Philosophical issues with existence of God
Philosophical issues with existence – Boeing 747 Gambit; Russell’s TeaPot; Morality etc.

March 7th - Sunday 2:00pm to 4:00pm
Free Will and Theodicy Putting it all together
The problem of Free Will with respect to Omnipotence; Omniscience and Omni benevolence. Problem with Evil

March 14th – Sunday 2:00pm to 4:00pm
Summarizing key concepts

Background Information

a) Free Will -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAqFbiBDb _c b) Eastern Religions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3w5ZUs7 ayI

c) Belief - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pOI2YvV uuE

Arguments against the existence of God

Type

Empirical Arguments

••

Inconsistent revelations from various faiths. Problem of Evil – if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent why does evil exist? Destiny of the “evangelized” Poor Design – rebuttal to the teleological argument Burden of proof on religion – Russell’s Teapot Analogy. Related to Theory of

•••

Parsimony. God of the gaps

••

Deductive Arguments
The ultimate Boeing 747 example – a counter to the argument from design. The

Ultimate 747 gambit states that God does not provide an origin of complexity, it simply assumes that complexity always existed. It also states that design fails to account for complexity, which natural selection can explain.

••

Omnipotence Paradox – Concept of omnipotence is a logical paradox. If God is all knowing and all powerful can he create a being more powerful than Him? The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will—or has allotted the same freedom to his creations—by arguing that the two properties are contradictory. According to the argument, if God already knows the future, then humanity is destined to corroborate with his knowledge of the future and not have true free will to deviate from it. Therefore our free will contradicts an omniscient god.

Arguments against the existence of God

Type

The No Reason Argument

•

The No Reason Argument - tries to show that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically by creating the universe, because it would have no needs, wants, or desires since these very concepts are subjectively human. Since the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist.

The Historical Induction Argument

••

Since all theistic religions in history are ultimately regarded as untrue or unreal therefore by induction current ones will eventually be proven untrue.

  • Eastern Religions
  • Hindu atheists accept Hinduism more as a "way of life" than a religion. They are

unlike other Hindus in their religious outlook, but they share the same cultural and moral values

••

If the existence of karma is assumed, the proposition of God as a moral governor of the universe is unnecessary. For, if God enforces the consequences of actions then he can do so without karma. If however, he is assumed to be within the law of karma, then karma itself would be the giver of consequences and there would be no need of a God. Even if karma is denied, God still cannot be the enforcer of consequences. Because the motives of an enforcer God would be either egoistic or altruistic. Now, God's motives cannot be assumed to be altruistic because an altruistic God would not create a world so full of suffering. If his motives are assumed to be egoistic, then God must be thought to have desire, as agency or authority cannot be established in the absence of desire.

Recommended publications
  • Reconciling Universal Salvation and Freedom of Choice in Origen of Alexandria

    Reconciling Universal Salvation and Freedom of Choice in Origen of Alexandria

    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Dissertations (1934 -) Projects Reconciling Universal Salvation and Freedom of Choice in Origen of Alexandria Lee W. Sytsma Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Sytsma, Lee W., "Reconciling Universal Salvation and Freedom of Choice in Origen of Alexandria" (2018). Dissertations (1934 -). 769. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/769 RECONCILING UNIVERSAL SALVATION AND FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA by Lee W. Sytsma, B.A., M.T.S. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2018 ABSTRACT RECONCILING UNIVERSAL SALVATION AND FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA Lee W. Sytsma, B.A., M.T.S. Marquette University, 2018 Origen has traditionally been famous for his universalism, but many scholars now express doubt that Origen believed in a universal and permanent apocatastasis. This is because many scholars are convinced that Origen’s teaching on moral autonomy (or freedom of choice) is logically incompatible with the notion that God foreordains every soul’s future destiny. Those few scholars who do argue that Origen believed in both moral autonomy and universal salvation either do not know how to reconcile these two views in Origen’s theology, or their proposed “solutions” are not convincing. In this dissertation I make two preliminary arguments which allow the question of logical compatibility to come into focus.
  • John Ford Wilson UNISA Student Number

    John Ford Wilson UNISA Student Number

    John Ford Wilson UNISA Student Number: 4593-816-4 275 Elkins Lake Huntsville, Texas 77340 USA 1-713-202-8953 [email protected] Approved Thesis Title: Examination of the Work of John C. Polkinghorne Praeparatio Evangelii Supervisor: Professor William J. Abraham Co-supervisor: Professor Vaughn Willard Baker Date of Submission of Thesis: i Curriculum Vitae John Ford Wilson Curriculum Vitae EDUCATION Ph.D. Physics, University of Houston, Houston, Texas M.S. Physics, Drexel Institute of Technology, Philadelphia, Pa. M.S. Theological Studies, Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University M.S. Industrial Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. B.S. Electrical Engineering, University of Tennessee. EXPERIENCE Lecturer, Department of Physics, Sam Houston State University; Huntsville, Texas Member The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science Fellow, Center of Faith and Culture at University of St. Thomas; Houston, Texas Adjunct Faculty for Institute for Spirituality and Health, Houston, Texas Associate Pastor for Evangelism, St. Luke’s United Methodist Church; Houston, Texas Ordained Deacon in Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church Research Assistant Professor of Physics and Director of Educational Outreach, University of Houston; Houston, Texas Professor of Physics Houston Community College System; Houston, Texas Adjunct Professor of Physics University of St. Thomas; Houston, Texas Wilson and Associates: Self-employed as consultant in Houston, Tx. for marketing, business and strategic planning, and investment management. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. Marketing Division, DuPont Textile Fibers Dept: Technical Service Manager for Reemay® and Typar®. Marketing Manager for Reemay®, Typar®, and Sontara®. Strategy and Development Assistant for Nomex® fiber and paper; responsible for business plans, earnings, and forecast.
  • Philosophical Quarterly

    Philosophical Quarterly

    THE PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY VOL. 10 No. 39 APRIL 1960 GOD AND EVIL A. THE PROBLEM STATED: Evil is a problem for the theist in that a contradiction is involved in the fact of evil on the one hand, and the belief in the omnipotence and perfection of God on the other. God cannot be both all-powerful and perfectly good if evil is real. This contradiction is well set out in its detail by Mackie in his discussion of the problem.l In his discussion Mackie seeks to show that this contradiction cannot be resolved in terms of man's free will. In arguing in this way Mackie neglects a large number of important points, and concedes far too much to the theist. He implicitly allows that whilst physical evil creates a problem, this problem is reducible to the problem of moral evil and that therefore the satisfactoriness of solutions of the problem of evil turns on the compatibility of free will and absolute goodness. In fact physical evils create a number of distinct problems which are not reducible to the problem of moral evil. Further, the proposed solu- tion of the problem of moral evil in terms of free will renders the attempt to account for physical evil in terms of moral good, and the attempt thereby to reduce the problem of evil to the problem of moral evil, completely un- tenable. Moreover, the account of moral evil in terms of free will breaks down on more obvious and less disputable grounds than those indicated by Mackie. Moral evil can be shown to remain a problem whether or not free will is compatible with absolute goodness.
  • Critical Analysis of Views on God's

    Critical Analysis of Views on God's

    5th International Conference on Research in Behavioral and Social Science Spain | Barcelona | December 7-9, 2018 Beyond the Barriers of Nature: Critical analysis of views on God’s Existence in various religions R. Rafique, N. Abas Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Gujrat, Hafiz Hayat Campus, Gujrat Abstract: This article reports critical overview of views on existence of God and naturalism. Theists argue the existence of God, atheists insist nonexistence of God, while agnostics claim the existence of God is unknowable, and even if exists, it is neither possible to demonstrate His existence nor likely to refute this spiritual theology. The argument that the existence of God can be known to all, even before exposure to any divine revelation, predates before Islam, Christianity and even Judaism. Pharos deity claim shows that the concept of deity existed long before major religions. History shows the Greek philosophers also tried to explore God before, during and after the prophet’s revolution in Mesopotamia. Today presupposition apologetical doctrine (Abram Kuyper) ponders and defends the existence of God. They conclude the necessary condition of belief to be exposed to revelation that atheists deny calling transcendental necessity. Human experience and action is proof of God’s existence as His existence is the necessary condition of human being’s intelligibility. The spirituality exists in all human sub-consciousness and sometimes, reveals to consciousness of some individuals. Human being’s inability to conceive the cosmos shows that there exist more types of creatures in different parts of universe. Enlightened men’s capability to resurrect corpse proves soul’s immortality.
  • An Annotated Bibliography of Omnipotence

    An Annotated Bibliography of Omnipotence

    An Annotated Bibliography of Omnipotence Kenneth L. Pearce November 12, 2011 This bibliography was prepared as part of the process of writing the article \Omnipotence" for the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Theories of omni- potence are distinguished into act theories, which suppose that an omnipotent being would be able to perform any action meeting certain conditions, to be specified by the theory, and result theories, which suppose that an omnipotent being would be able to bring about any result, again meeting certain conditions. Anderson, C. Anthony. 1984. Divine omnipotence and impossible tasks: an in- tensional analysis. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 15 (3): 109{124. Produces a rigorous formalization of the Stone Paradox, and defends a sophisticated act theory against it. Aquinas, St. Thomas. 1921. The summa theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. 2nd ed. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: Burns Oates & Washbourne. http://newadvent.org/summa/. Part 1, Qu. 25, Art. 3 argues that omnipotence should be understood as the ability to do anything that is absolutely possible, i.e., that does not imply a contradiction. Brown, Campbell, and Yujin Nagasawa. 2005. Anything you can do, God can do better. American Philosophical Quarterly 42 (3): 221 {227. Argues that the impossibility of an omnipotent being can be derived from the premise that if a being cannot make a stone it cannot lift, it is not omnipotent, plus a few principles widely accepted by theists. As a result, theists must reject this principle. Cargile, James. 1967. On omnipotence. No^us 1 (2): 201{205. Points out that the paradox formulated in Cowan 1965 only tells against necessary omnipotence and advocates an account of omnipotence according to which, for any possible action, an omnipotent being possesses a power which could be exercised in the performance of that action.
  • This Note Is Brought to You by Fabreads.Org Go to Fabreads.Org/Oau-Notes for More Notes

    This Note Is Brought to You by Fabreads.Org Go to Fabreads.Org/Oau-Notes for More Notes

    WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? ETYMOLOGY OF PHILOSOPHY Philosophy etymological comes from two Greek words “PHILEU” and “SOPHIA” which means “LOVE” and “WISDOM” respectively. • It is categorically termed “LOVE FOR WISDOM”. If philosophy means Love for Wisdom then philosophers are “LOVERS OF WISDOM” Philosophy as love for wisdom doesn’t mean that philosophy is wisdom or philosophers are custodians of wisdom. All it says is that philosophy is that philosophy is a discipline that urges us to be in constant search for wisdom. We should be able to distinguish wisdom from collection of mere opinions, dogmas opinions, articles of faith or unquestioned positions or views i.e. all received opinions must be examined in the process of searching for wisdom. Philosophy is a critical discipline that urges us to question all received opinions by criticizing examine in order to get to the object of love, which is wisdom. Critical here means being able to subject all opinions to critical observation in order to have access to the alternative that is supported by the superior arguments. For this reason of criticality, philosophy was seen as a “GADFLY” (The nauseating sound mosquitoes, housefly and other insects of the likes make) a discipline that constantly keeps us on our toes in a way such that we are not susceptible or don’t fall easily into accepting unquestioned & indefensible positions. This means we must always make attempt to penetrate through distinct opinion or perspective. Philosophy is like sciences, they are both (philosophy and sciences) interested in carrying out systematic research in to the nature of things.
  • TWO ARGUMENTS of ST. ANSELM 1. in Proslogium II, St. Anselm

    TWO ARGUMENTS of ST. ANSELM 1. in Proslogium II, St. Anselm

    APPENDIX TWO ARGUMENTS OF ST. ANSELM 1. In Proslogium II, St. Anselm argues as follows: And assuredly that than which no greater being can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater. Therefore, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality. 1 I shall take "exists in the understanding alone" to mean "is logically possible but not actual", and I shall take "a being than which no greater can be conceived" to mean "a being than which no greater being is logically possible", i.e., "a maximally great being". Moreover, I shall take "[If X] exists in the understanding alone, [then] it can be conceived to exist in reality, which is greater" to mean "If X is merely logically possible, then it would be greater if it were actual"; and I shall take it that the bearer of the predicate "would be greater if it were actual" is, at least, a logically possible object. Given these interpretations, Anselm's argument can be restated as follows: (1) If there were a logically possible object which is a maximally great being and it were merely logically possible (rather than both logically possible and actual), then it would be greater if it were actual.
  • Tony Gray, "Hell in the Twentieth Century,"

    Tony Gray, "Hell in the Twentieth Century,"

    Tony Gray, “Hell in the Twentieth Century,” Epworth Review 23.1 (Jan. 1996): 28-32. Hell in the Twentieth Century Tony Gray [p.28] Many would argue that although twentieth century society no longer believes in a literal hell as a place of eternal retribution, this generation and those before it have seen enough of hell on earth to more than make up for this unbelief. Innocent suffering continues on a massive scale. Millions have perished at the hands of cruel tyrants. Is this not what we mean when we speak of ‘hell’? Yet it is the very fact that much of the suffering we witness is thoroughly unjust which has led some to reconsider that terrible idea, the doctrine of hell. Perhaps it was considerations such as these that influenced the ancients to develop their view of the afterlife in the first place.1 As the twentieth century draws to a close, maybe these thoughts will once again bring hell back into the public consciousness. Ghost, a recent and hugely successful hit at the box-office, was one in a line of many Hollywood films that depicted a belief, or perhaps more correctly a desire, which seeks the execution of justice. When the evil character in the film has finally been tracked down and accidentally killed, we see his shadow descend beneath the ground, dragged down by darkened spirits. Punishment is coming to the one who chose evil. Although such a film may not be a good starting point for a theology of hell, it is perhaps indicative of the revival that hell is having in some areas today.
  • Atheist Symbols Atheism

    Atheist Symbols Atheism

    Atheist symbols Atheism What is it? Atheism Defined • Atheism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] -noun : a lack of belief in a god or gods. • Atheism deals with belief, not knowledge. • Atheism makes no positive claims. • Percent of Atheists in the U.S. population. Degrees of Atheism • Strong Atheists- I believe that No gods exists • Weak Atheists- I have no belief in any gods • Anti-theist- I am opposed to all religions. • Agnostic- Used by many to mean a “fence- sitter” or undecided. Misconceptions about Atheism • Atheism is a religion. • Atheists don’t believe in anything. • Atheists hate god. • Atheists worship the devil. • Atheists are unhappy angry people. • Atheists just need to hear the “good news”. • Atheists that have lost their faith were never true believers. • Atheists have no morals • Atheists want to take away peoples faith. • Atheism leads to other societal woes. • Atheists don’t exist. History of Atheism • Earliest form of the Word recorded in 600 B.C. in ancient Greek. • 1566 first recorded use of Atheist. (French) • Late 1700’s was first used as a self description. • In the 1840’s the first major self-avowed American Atheists were Elizabeth Cody Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Both were active in women’s Suffrage. • 1885 -Col. Robert Ingersoll was elected the president of the American Secular Union. This was the first organized secular organization in America. Mark Twain was one of the first members. History of Atheism • 1859-Darwin published his world changing book “On the origin of species” • Mid-1800’s to the first world war, Atheist and Secularist’s were involved in many social issues: -Abortion, slavery, contraception, sufferage • 1925- Scope’s Monkey trail was the beginning of the culture wars in America.
  • {DOWNLOAD} the Paradoxes of Paul Ebook, Epub

    {DOWNLOAD} the Paradoxes of Paul Ebook, Epub

    THE PARADOXES OF PAUL PDF, EPUB, EBOOK D A Carson,Mark A Seifrid | 545 pages | 12 Jan 2005 | Baker Publishing Group | 9780801027413 | English | Grand Rapids, United Kingdom Omnipotence paradox - Wikipedia Hoppe's other clients have included the "free-trade" promoting and job-busting US Chamber of Commerce, recently outed as perhaps the tobacco industry's most influential champion not only in Washington but the entire world. Eric Cantor R-VA , the House majority leader who was found to be so deeply embedded in the money machinery of Washington's crony capitalism that he was embarrassingly trounced by an obscure tea partier running against him in their Republican primary. Now that successful challenger, David Brat, has endorsed Ryan. Oh, the temptations, the temptations ready for plucking! You get the picture. Paul Ryan, waiting to be crowned speaker of what was once called "The People's House," prepares for business-as-usual. Committed to the sad and sordid Washington game that has so angered Americans on every point of the political spectrum, he is about to be named one of its Most Valuable Players. And if anyone tells you otherwise, just recall for them the testimony of one of Ryan's own Republican colleagues, Rep. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, who says he can't support Ryan because, "If you've got problems with a man today, and the man tells you, 'Tomorrow, I'll be a different person' - it doesn't happen. Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Your vote is your voice! It is your right and your responsibility.
  • The Meaning of Hell Exploring the Meaning of Life Through the Lens of the Afterlife

    The Meaning of Hell Exploring the Meaning of Life Through the Lens of the Afterlife

    Department of Theology Studies in Faiths and Worldviews D2, 15.0 c Master’s Thesis (One Year) Spring Term 2021 The Meaning of Hell Exploring the meaning of life through the lens of the afterlife Author: Henry Englund Supervisor: Mikael Stenmark i ABSTRACT In this thesis, I take a closer look at the meaning of life from an eschatological point of view. More precisely, the question at hand is whether and in what sense the existence of Hell would impact the meaning of life. The thesis primarily makes use of Joshua Seachris’s theories on what ‘the meaning of life’ denotes, dividing ‘meaning’ up into the subcategories of ‘intelligibility’, ‘purpose’, and ‘significance’. Three different answers to the research question are proposed, which crystallizes three different positions: Hell-optimism, which denotes the view that the existence of Hell would contribute to the meaning of life; Hell-neutralism, which denotes the view that the existence of Hell would have no effect on the meaning of life; and Hell-pessimism, which denotes the view that the existence of Hell would detract from the meaning of life. Arguments are given for each position, most appropriated from the broader meaning of life-discourse. On the basis of the evaluation of each argument, Hell-pessimism is considered the most probable of the three. KEYWORDS: eschatology, hell, meaning, life, intelligibility, purpose, significance. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................
  • On Autonomy and Self-Binding Charlie Coil University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

    On Autonomy and Self-Binding Charlie Coil University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 8-2018 Abandoning the Dream of Omnipotence: On Autonomy and Self-Binding Charlie Coil University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Applied Behavior Analysis Commons, Behavioral Economics Commons, and the Comparative Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Coil, Charlie, "Abandoning the Dream of Omnipotence: On Autonomy and Self-Binding" (2018). Theses and Dissertations. 2893. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/2893 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Abandoning the Dream of Omnipotence: On Autonomy and Self-Binding A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy by Charles Coil, Jr. University of Arkansas Master of Arts in Philosophy, 2009 August 2018 University of Arkansas This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. ______________________________ Eric Funkhouser, PhD Dissertation Director ______________________________ ______________________________ Jacob Adler, PhD Tom Senor, PhD Committee Member Committee Member Abstract I offer a prolegomenon to the philosophical study of a uniquely human activity—the self- binding act. This philosophical interest directly connects with the Enlightenment project of centralizing personal autonomy and individual freedom as primary values of personhood. Self- binding represents an easily referenced action that introduces a possible clash between autonomy and freedom on the one hand seen as in conflict with other ancient basic human values like self- control and avoiding akrasia.