Atheistic and theistic arguments

Let us analyze two propositions:

Proposition 1:If theism is true, no valid deductive statement exists with the decision “ Therefore, God does non be. ”

Proposition 2:If godlessness is true, no valid deductive statement exists with the decision “ Therefore, God exists. ”

The inquiry now becomes, which of these propositions is more likely to be true? A brief study of unbelieving and theistic statements will reflect visible radiation on this inquiry. Normally, advocates or antagonists of these statements find blemished premises, or 1s unsupported by grounds. While a deductive statement implodes if a premiss is false, surely this is non the lone manner to estimate separate sets of deductive statements as a whole. For illustration, if 10 deductive statements propose the being of some entity “ Ten ” , and the premises are comparatively noncontroversial, it is likely the decision is sound. On the other manus, if two deductive statements and one inductive statement exist against that same entity “ Ten ” , what can be said about “ Ten ” in general? Without picking apart the premises, it seems intuitive that, the entity “ Ten ” is more likely to be than non. For illustration, there is much argument refering the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and the being of an existent space. Esteemed mathematicians disagree on the issue, but does this distort the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Absolutely non! It simply creates a ruddy herring from the fact the theist really has a deductive statement in the first topographic point. Surely, for deductive statements, both premises need be true, and the decision follows logically ; but must we need to support these statements premiss by premiss? I think, most surely, a general overview of the stuff the theist and atheist possesses will take us in the right way as to which Proposition is true. Sing this, the truth-value of Proposition 1 or Proposition 2 will imply three things, separated into three basic contentions, with a undermentioned decision:

  1. The true proposition will bring forth more deductive statements in general so the false 1.
  2. The premises of the deductive statements of the true proposition will be decently basic, supported by scientific discipline, logically intuitive, and at least problematic amongst bookmans.
  3. The true proposition will non merely supply valid deductive statements, but overpoweringly so, sing the surrogate proposition will be needfully false, and have no valid statements.
  4. Upon contemplation ( below ) of contentions 1-3, Theism far outweighs Atheism in footings of deductive statements earnestly considered by esteemed philosophers. ( Conclusion )

Let us so turn to contention one. The true proposition will bring forth more deductive statements in general so the false 1. We must pull an of import differentiation when mentioning to deductive statements here. Surely, a mass of deductive statements entirely does nil to increase the chance of Proposition 1 or Proposition 2. For illustration, a bantering web site intents to hold over 300 cogent evidences for the being of God. These statements range from the “ Argument from Incredulity ” which states, “ How could God NOT be, you bozo? Therefore God exists ” to the “ Argument from American Evangelism ” which states, “ Stating people that God exists makes me foul rich, Therefore God exists. ” Clearly, these types of statements do non represent a valid theistic cogent evidence. No serious philosopher pays any attending to this jeer of logic. The deductive statements in this article will be 1s that serious philosophers from both sides of the theological spectrum see deserving debating. Let us so study the prominent, deductive theistic statements, and so see popular unbelieving versions, and comparison who has more.

Some of the chief, deductive theistic statements include the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Ontological Argument, the Axiological Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Transcendental Argument, and the Contingency Argument. These statements are all logically sound ; that is, if their premises are true, the decision follows ineluctably. Distinguished philosophers dispute these statements in professional diaries of doctrine, and in assorted articles. For illustration, authors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provide a drawn-out review of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Surely, they think this statement is deserving challenging. In Richard Dawkin ‘s recent book, “ The God Delusion ” , he devotes an full chapter trying to rebut the Ontological statement. Assorted other philosophers deal with the other statements extensively in articles and published books. Clearly, theistic statements draw much attending from atheist and theist philosophers likewise. We will briefly chalk out each statement and so asses their premises against deductive unbelieving statements.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument contains highly noncontroversial premises. Premise one contends whatever begins to be has a cause. Upon contemplation, it would be impossible for something to come into being, causeless. It would hold to make itself, but in order to make itself it would hold to be already! Therefore premiss 1 is undeniable to the rational head. Premise two of the statement asserts that the existence began to be. This is accepted by most of the scientific community. Stephen Hawking asserts, “ Alternatively, about everyone now believes that the existence, and clip itself, had a beginning at the large knock. ” Upon contemplation, it is absurd that the existence ever existed. If an infinite sum of clip existed in the past, we would ne’er make the present. From these two premises, it follows logically and ineluctably that the existence has a cause. Now, as the cause of clip, infinite, and affair, the cause must be dateless, infinite less, and immaterial. It besides must be highly powerful. The Cause must besides be personal. Since the cause is dateless and immaterial, the lone entities that fit this description are abstract objects and a head. Since abstract objects do non stand in causal dealingss, it must be a head.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *