However, her argument, and similar arguments, have been acknowledged by some moral realists, such as David Enoch and Erik Wielenberg to pose a significant problem for their view. Arguments from Moral Knowledge or Awareness A variety of arguments have been developed that God is necessary to explain human awareness of moral truth or moral knowledge, if one believes that this moral awareness amounts to knowledge.
Yet even William Lane Craig, an outspoken critic of atheism, recognizes that this position is false. He had no earthly way to liquidate the obligation. As we shall see, there are a variety of features of morality that can be appealed to in the first steps of the arguments, as well as a variety of ways in which God might be thought to provide an explanation of those features in the second steps.
Perhaps the strongest non-theistic alternative would be some form of ethical non-naturalism, in which one simply affirms that the claim that persons have a special dignity is an a priori truth requiring no explanation.
The moral argument from knowledge will not be convincing to anyone who is committed to any form of expressivism or other non-objective metaethical theory, and clearly many philosophers find such views attractive.
However, the fact that we humans are aware of moral facts is itself surprising and calls for an explanation. But other statements that contain the word "God" seem quite meaningful to me.
Sin manifests itself in a number of hideous ways. Therefore, probably God exists. Assuming that God commands what is right, does he command what is right because it is right? An inspired writer affirmed that: If I have reasons for thinking that God exists, and you hopefully have reasons for thinking that He does not, why should I accept the notion that the magical judge of logic land has ruled that only I have to defend my position.
The ontological argument assumes, "There is no being greater than the greatest being. In that case a practical argument for religious belief could be judged a form of wish-fulfillment.
Others will find premise 2 suspect. Therefore, most people would probably accept 2 at face value; they would not demand proof of 2 beyond my claim that 2 is true.
Theists often say that God is "omnipotent", meaning that God can do anything which is logically possible. It might appear that Street is arguing straightforwardly that evolutionary theory makes it improbable that humans would have objective moral knowledge.
How can God be a cause without any of the familiar attributes that enable things to produce other things? See McBrayerRizzieri And the same is true for other entities postulated in other hypotheses. Some writers have suggested a methodological principle which works as follows: Therefore, on the basis of prior probability alone, rational people would rightfully demand evidence beyond my word for the truth of 3 before they believed me.
The argument from human dignity could be put into propositional form as follows: When scientists claim that genetic mutations are random, they do not mean that they are uncaused, or even that they are unpredictable from the point of view of biochemistry, but only that the mutations do not happen in response to the adaptational needs of the organism.
Inductive arguments form the basis for many of our beliefs, such as the belief, "The sun will rise tomorrow.
But my friend was content for the conversation to be refined within character potshots and a lack of substance. Adler offers the following example of how an article of faith might be disproven by a contradictory: If a theist says that, "God is wholly good", that entails there is no evil act for which an omnibenevolent being is responsible.
The Prior Probability Objection:Reflection on Arguments for the Existence of God Last night, I got in from a long day of teaching, only to be challenged on Twitter with jabs intended for Christian target practice.
As the conversation pressed onward, a few things became clear to me. Some Reflections on Whether God Exists.
Posted on June 10, The principle of non-contradiction, for example, may be said to be necessarily existent–it is a principle that holds in any possible universe, to use a familiar way of putting it. The issue of God’s existence is, in the last analysis, the issue of whether we human beings.
Before attempting to explain and assess moral arguments for the existence of God, it would be helpful to have some perspective on the goals of arguments for God’s existence.
but also claims that God’s non-existence undermines the reality of traditional western morality. The fact that theists can enlist such unlikely allies does not mean. A reflection analysis on non existence of god We all have a story, a narrative of how God brought us to birth and has.
“Goodness” and the Existence of God As one carefully reflects upon the concept of goodness, one fact becomes apparent. Good, in the moral sense of the term, exists only in conjunction with personality. Yet the atheist response to this objection has been virtually non-existent.
This response is the purpose of this paper. Willard's "general considerations" are simply an analysis of the attributes of the object in an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable.Download