Philosophical issues with existence of God
www.rationalhumor.com R.N Session Schedule Session # Date / Time Session Name Brief Description
1 Jan 24th – Sunday General Concepts & History of Understand what are the various belief systems. 2:00pm to 4:00pm Philosophy Historical Review of how Philosophy evolved 2 Jan 31stth – Sunday General Philosophy an Introduction General Introduction into what is the branch of 2:00pm to 4:00pm Philosophy and then specifically review religious philosophy 3 Feb 7th – Sunday Philosophyof Religion How philosophyis handled and presented in the 2:00pm to 4:00pm various MAJOR religions – Abrahaministic & Eastern
4 Feb 14th – Sunday Logic & Logical Fallacies Understanding Logic and understanding how to 2:00pm to 4:00pm identify fallacies in arguments 5 Feb 21st – Sunday Arguments for the Existence of God Theological arguments; Ontological Arguments and 2:00pm to 4:00pm Teleological Arguments for the Existence of God
6 Feb 28th – Sunday Philosophical issues with existence of Philosophical issues with existence – Boeing 747 2:00pm to 4:00pm God Gambit; Russell’s TeaPot; Morality etc.
7 March 7th - Sunday Free Will and Theodicy Theproblem of Free Will with respect to 2:00pm to 4:00pm Omnipotence; Omniscience and Omni benevolence. Problem with Evil 8 March 14th – Sunday Putting it all together Summarizingkey concepts 2:00pm to 4:00pm
www.rationalhumor.com R.N 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 • Since all theistic religions in history are ultimately regarded as untrue or unreal Argument 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.