Philosophy Paper on Gods Existence

Tiera Suggs R. McCashland philosophical system 101 final examination Paper Final school of thought Paper I go forth oppose Bertrand Russells view that accept in matinee idol is trivial and that of manhood poor imagination. I will expend Tim Holts Philosophy of worship to display how believing in deity is ofttimes logical than non. Russell uses a few arguments to analyse an disprove the globe of perfection in why I am non a Christian. I will channelize the First Cause Argument, the Design scheme Argument, and the righteousness Argument. I will receive briefly on what Russell believes and then use common and widely authoritative theories to contradict Russell.Russell uses many reasons to support his dis judgement of matinee idol and overthrows many known theories explaining divinity fudge scarce I will focus on his main points. First of which being, The First-Cause Argument, which basic each(prenominal)y center everything we know has a fount and no ma tter how far pole human beings is traced, in that location is chain levelts of answers leading back to one cause. Russell rebuked this argument by quoting an chronicle by John Stuart Mills,My father taught me that the uncertainty Who make me? toleratenot be answered, since it immediately suggests the merely question Who made god? That disapprobation for Russell confirms that deity mustnt exist, he as well as says our poor imagination created the idea of God (Russell why I am not a Christian). Russell fails to logically disprove Gods existence because he did not adequately fox doubt upon the many other arguments that harbour a cle ber, more philosophical sales booth. The cosmologic Argument simply states (1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.? (2) The humanity exists.? at that placefore? (3) The universe 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 appear logical or ideal to use an authors autobiography to get wind and disprove a widely accepted theory. Any person can channel a set of ideas and say, this is wrong because nevertheless one must justify ones point. Russells argument carries no weight because it is not adequately philosophical. Even if you try and refute the Cosmological Argument on the reason of face, if everything has a cause then shouldnt God? The Kalam Cosmological Argument takes it a step further by saying there is a difference in the midst of God and the universe, the universe has a starting line in time subjecting it to be cause/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 authorize Russells standpoint wateryen and seem arbitrary. The next point Russell attacks in Why I am not a Christian is the Design Theory, which states Everything in the instaurati on is made just so that we can manage to live in the area, and if the domain 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 much better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it. What makes his standpoint questionable is the fact that he is hard to simplify the complexity of the nature of human 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 printing 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 system and zero point 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 adept and wrong, because if you believe in God, you believe he is all heartfelt. So how can something all good create wrong? further one can refute Russells statement by simply saying, morality is a set of eclipses so there ust be a air force officer (Holt Philosophy of religion). The Formal incorrupt 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 look 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 exis ts. The Formal Moral Argument seems more plausible than Russells theory.It follows a clear system and answers questions of morality, plot Russell just bears the end point of God is good so there cannot be bad. Again, Russells theories are visceral and in cut 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. peerless needs reasons in proving or disproving something, not just banters and foolish inquires. Russell is foolish in saying God was created by human being with a poor overactive imagination, he is filled with more imagination to believe the universe and everything in it was just a random coincidence. Rus sells attempts are weak and vague, not enough to disprove complete logical statements. Works Cited Holt, Tim. Philosophy of Religion. 2008. 23, Nov. 2009. . Russell, Bertrand. Why I am not a Christian. edited by John R. Lenz for the Bertrand Russell Society. 1996. 23, Nov. 2009.