Philosophy Paper on Gods Existence

Tiera Suggs R. McCashland ism 101 last-place Paper Final Philosophy Paper I will oppose Bertrand Russells vox populi that believe in paragon is trivial and that of humans distressing imagination. I will use Tim Holts Philosophy of Religion to show how believing in beau ideal is more than legitimate than non. Russell uses a few arguments to filter an disprove the existence of God in Why I am non a Christian. I will address the number one go Argument, the Design Theory Argument, and the godliness Argument. I will touch curtly on what Russell believes and then use common and widely accepted theories to controvert Russell.Russell uses many reasons to support his dis smell of God and refutes many known theories explaining God provided I will focus on his main points. First of which being, The First-Cause Argument, which basically means ever soything we know has a showcase and no proposition how far impale existence is traced, there is chain events of sticks leading b ack to one cause. Russell rebuked this argument by quoting an autobiography by John Stuart Mills,My produce taught me that the question Who make me? can non be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question Who made god? That sentence for Russell confirms that God mustnt exist, he also says our worthless imagination created the idea of God (Russell Why I am non a Christian). Russell fails to logically disprove Gods existence because he did not adequately cast doubt upon the many other arguments that have a cle ber, more philosophical standpoint. The Cosmological Argument simply states (1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.? (2) The mankind exists.? then? (3) The domain has a cause of its existence.? (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.? Therefore? (5) God exists.It does not search logical or ideal to use an authors autobiography to interpret and disprove a widely accepted theory. Any person can take a set of ideas and say, this is malign because but one must reasonableify ones point. Russells argument carries no weight because it is not adequately philosophical. Even if you try and refute the Cosmological Argument on the grounds of saying, if everything has a cause then shouldnt God? The Kalam Cosmological Argument takes it a timber further by saying there is a difference in the midst of God and the universe, the universe has a beginning in time subjecting it to be caused/created.Since God has no beginning in time, then he is not subject to be caused/created (Holt Philosophy of Religion). The Cosmological Argument used along with the Kalam Cosmological Argument make Russells standpoint lightheadeden and seem arbitrary. The next point Russell attacks in Why I am not a Christian is the Design Theory, which states Everything in the macrocosm is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it. Russell denies that belief by saying, ince the time of Darwin we understand practically better why active creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environment was made to be adapted to them but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation. There is no leaven of design about it. What makes his standpoint questionable is the fact that he is trying to simplify the complexity of the nature of humans and leaves it to coincidence.. Yes we adapt to our surroundings but how? By chance? That is too unbelievable, organs as complicated as the heart or lungs function sequentially because of chance?That notion is not logical. In Philosophy of Religion, The Teleological Argument however is, stating that the world was created and exists with a purpose in mind. The universe is a ordered outline and nothing is left to chance. The Teleological Argument is more believable than Russells just because so called reasonings. Russells next argument is that of devotion. He believes God is not the reason for right and wrong, because if you believe in God, you believe he is all good. So how can something all good create wrong? barely one can refute Russells statement by simply saying, religion is a set of commands so there ust be a commander (Holt Philosophy of religion). The Formal Moral Argument states (1) Morality consists of a set of commands.? (2) For every command there is a commander.? Therefore? (3) There is a commander that commanded morality.? (4) Commands only carry as much authority as does their commander.? (5) Morality carries ultimate authority.? Therefore? (6) The commander that commanded morality carries ultimate authority.? (7) Only God carries ultimate authority.? Therefore? (8) The commander that commanded morality is God.? Therefore? (9) God exists. The Formal Moral Argument seems more plausible than Russells theory.It follows a clear system and answers questions of morality, while Russell just bears the deduction of God is good so there cannot be bad. Again, Russells theories are illogical and incomplete compared to ones he is trying to disprove. Russell fails to clarify his statement, his argument is not convincing and is a premature conclusion about God that he cannot even validate. Russell obviously holds some strong convictions against Christianity and God in general. But his reasoning and conclusions are not philosophical, therefore rendering them illogical and mundane. Russells argument is not as valid as he thinks. unmatched needs reasons in proving or disproving something, not just banters and arrhythmic inquires. Russell is foolish in saying God was created by humans with a poor overactive imagination, he is filled with more imagination to believe the universe and everything in it was just a random coincidence. Russells attempts are weak and vague, not enough to disprove complete logical statements. Works Cited Holt, Tim. Philosophy of Religion. 2008. 23, Nov. 2009. . R ussell, Bertrand. Why I am not a Christian. edited by John R. Lenz for the Bertrand Russell Society. 1996. 23, Nov. 2009.