What are the arguments about the existence of God?
The argument claims that the universe is strongly analogous, in its order and regularity, to an artifact such as a watch; because the existence of the watch justifies the presumption of a watchmaker, the existence of the universe justifies the presumption of a divine creator of the universe, or God.
What are the 3 arguments against the existence of God?
Through these three characteristics, theism is challenged by the logical problem of evil (if there is an omnipotent, omniscient God, evil can’t exist) and the evidential problem of evil (the existence of evil gives good evidence against God’s omnipotence and omniscience).
What are the four traditional arguments for the existence of God?
Evidence for the existence of God is seen in several ways in what have traditionally been called the Classical Arguments for God’s existence. The four Classical arguments are simply called: The Ontological argument, The Cosmological argument, The Teleological argument, and The Moral argument.
What is the philosophical argument for the existence of God?
While the three argument types above, ontological, cosmological, and teleological, are regarded as the main classical types of arguments for the existence of God, some philosophers have used moral grounds to argue that God must exist.
What are the three main arguments for the existence of God quizlet?
three sorts of epistemic arguments for theism: ‘cosmological arguments’, ‘teleological arguments’ and ‘ontological arguments’.
Which of the following is an argument used to explain the existence of God quizlet?
Which of the following is an argument used to explain the existence of God? Indecision, not making a decision, is actually a decision in itself.
What are the 5 arguments for the existence of God quizlet?
Terms in this set (5)
Everything moves in the universe; something started the motion. The First Mover is God. Everything is caused by something else, but there must be an Ultimate or First Cause. This First Cause is God.
Why does Hume doubt we could ever have reason to believe in miracles?
Nevertheless, Hume tells us that no testimony can be adequate to establish the occurrence of a miracle. The problem that arises is not so much with the reliability of the witnesses as with the nature of what is being reported. A miracle is, according to Hume, a violation of natural law.
Does Hume believe in God?
I offer a reading of Hume’s writings on religion which preserves the many criticisms of established religion that he voiced, but also reveals that Hume believed in a genuine theism and a true religion. At the heart of this belief system is Hume’s affirmation that there is a god, although not a morally good.
Why Hume doesn’t think we are rationally justified in believing in miracles that we haven’t personally witnessed?
Since the laws of nature are far more probable than the testimony of witnesses, Hume suggests that we are never rationally justified in believing in miracles.