PLease could you check my conclusion: “Aquinas & Paley prove Gods existence with their arguments”Do you agree

Question

In conclusion I think that Aquinas and Paley do not entirely prove God’s existence with their arguments because there are many criticisms with these two arguments, however religious believers can then justify the argument for example science has proof of the big bang and Evolution, but what actually started these two theories in the first place? Religious believers can then argue back at say that God started it. Other theories against the existence of God equally have many flaws for example one major flaw in Darwinian Theory is that it relies on something automatically existing, or appearing out of nothing. For example where did this single-celled organism that started the Universe come from in the first place? The Cosmological and Teleological Arguments for the existence of God both have certain strengths. They also share heavy criticisms. In both cases the criticisms outweigh the strengths. Also, sometimes the two arguments are slightly confusing.

Therefore, the two arguments do not really give enough, clear evidence of the existence of God. In my opinion, you can neither prove nor disprove God’s existence without everyone agreeing/disagreeing. You can argue and put forth theories, but that's all. I think God planned it this way. You either have faith in God, or you don’t.

thats it, what do you think? what level would it be?? is it a really good, good, or v. bad

no i've written the essay but its way too long to post here so i posted the conclusion which is quite important in the essay you know.

this is year 8 work-not even GCSE -i know well hard for our age !! that's what i get for going to a grammer school....

whatever "super atheist" just coz i don't believe in your views dosen't make my conclusion completely "dreadful"

Answer 1

NOBODY can prove OR disprove the existence of God. As an agnostic, I believe that if there is a God, he is a cosmic God, not a personal one (as in the Abrahamic religions).

However, the Abrahamic god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is another story. I think I can present an argument that some will concede meets a reasonable standard of proof.
.
---
.

Ten FACTS that debunk the Abrahamic Religions

Fact #1:

Men, everywhere on the planet, have created countless gods from time, immemorial.

Fact #2:

No two gods are exactly the same.

Fact #3:

Most gods are dead or dying and their religions are now ancient myths – despite being dominant for hundreds and even thousands of years. The first truly great monotheistic religion, Zoroastrianism, is a millennia older than Judaism and is STILL practiced by a million adherents.

Fact #4:

Scripture was edited and nurtured over the course of hundreds of years. That's not divine inspiration.

Fact #5:

Christianity is a selective copy of previous religions: notably ancient Egyptian, Babylonian and Persian. The story of Jesus unabashedly plagiarizes the stories of Horus, Ahura Mazda and Mithras. The savior theme and the miracles of Jesus' story is a common spiritual model replicated by many religions BEFORE Christianity.

Fact #6:

Abrahamic religions deal in the supernatural (i.e. things that are physically impossible in the natural world). Faith in the supernatural requires suspension of disbelief (i.e. the believer must convince himself that the impossible is possible).

Fact #7:

The 4 gospels of the New Testament are attributed to 4 of Jesus’ disciples: but “Matthew”, “Mark”, “Luke” and “John” are pseudonyms used by anonymous authors, from the Roman Empire, who wrote these gospels (in Greek) long after ALL the disciples were dead.

Fact #8:

The chroniclers and historians of Jesus’ era and region somehow managed not to notice the fantastic achievements and stories of the legendary Jesus or his hordes of followers – despite writing about many other, less note-worthy, contemporaries of Jesus.

Fact #9:

The legacy of the Abrahamic religions is one of intolerance, corruption, schisms, inquisitions, crusades, enmity, war and hatred, that (mostly) continues to this very day.

Fact #10:

Mankind has benefited and advanced through intellectual achievements – not spiritual ones (if there are any). The intellectual discipline of science has never sparked a war or burned a heretic. The world’s charities are non-profit, while the Catholic church is the richest institution of any kind, by far, in the world.
.
---
.

To Fundamentalist Christians:

I address this to you because most adherents leaven their belief with a little common sense. Fundamentalists do not.

These 10 facts are clear and convincing evidence that ALL religions and gods are man-made. Those who deny this evidence are placed in the untenable position of asserting that their particular God and religion is an exception. Maintaining the falsity of the thousands of other religions, while claiming your own is real and true, is transparently ridiculous.

The scientific rigor of proof is exceptionally stringent. Science regards evolution as a proven fact. One can assert that God layered all that fossil evidence in the earth – in just the right sequence – to fool us for some reason: but that assertion has no evidence and can be ruled out without fear of equivocation. In the same way, the assertion that one particular God is real when we know the others are man-made is so unlikely as to be entirely discounted in the absence of some sort of evidence.

If you’re a confirmed, devout, Fundamentalist Christian, I know you will continue to deny. Denial is your stock in trade. So let me try to approach this from your point of view (if I can presume to do so).

You love and believe in God and Jesus and the Bible because you think they’re good, loving, holy and, most importantly, true. You see no contradiction in Original Sin, genocide, war or murder as long as it’s sanctioned by your good, loving, holy and truthful God.

If the Bible says it, you believe it. If the Bible says you’re born an unworthy sinner, then you were born an unworthy sinner. If the Bible says Jesus died for your sins, it doesn’t matter that God is the one who imputed Original Sin upon you to begin with. If God says you’ll rot in hell if you don’t believe in him, then you’ll just have to believe in him . . . you’ll find some way to avoid doubt – some way to sublimate your thoughts: after all, hell sounds like a very nasty place.

Sublimating your thoughts IS essential . . . isn’t it? You’re guilty of adultery or fornication if you lust in your heart. Have you ever lusted? Have you ever sinned? Do you still sin? Then you CAN’T control your thoughts, can you? Of course not. You’re not perfect. You’re human. Because you believe every word of the Bible, you will always feel guilty – because you’re human. How crazy is that? Your religion puts you at odds with yourself. You must spend your life in denial of YOURSELF. No wonder you’re so good at this denial thing. You’ve got it down pat.

Answer 2

"one major flaw in Darwinian Theory is that it relies on something automatically existing, or appearing out of nothing."

Not exactly. Evolution (which by the way did not stop with Darwin 100+ years ago) simply says that mutations in existing lifeforms led to branching off into others. And the fossil records give many examples of this. In fact two of evolution's greatest arguments for it's validity is that it has stood up to many tests and constant criticism. And the other being that everyone criticizing it has to first misrepresent what it says.

"For example where did this single-celled organism that started the Universe come from in the first place?"

Started the universe? I'm pretty sure you won't find any scientist making any claim of the sort. Again why the misrepresentations? If you want to criticize evolution why not at the very least start from what it actually says. Otherwise, no insult intended, you appear to be making an argument out of either ignorance or intentional lies.

I think you would be much better off leaving out any details about evolution unless you're going to research what it actually says and not what you've heard. I also think you would be better off simply sticking to "nothing disproves" the existence of god argument. It's cheesy but has fewer problems. If you insist on using evolution you would have better luck simply saying that evolution doesn't rule out the existence of god. Which has the virtue of at least being factually true.

Answer 3

If we use impeccable logic, combined with commonsense and a mind open to truth, we cannot seriously doubt the existence of God. We can certainly believe because it is eminently reasonable to believe, and also quite illogical not to believe in God.
However, it is easy for our minds to be clouded by having an antagonistic attitude towards truths which we find uncomfortable. If we do not love truth for truth's sake, regardless of whether that truth may make us feel uncomfortable, guilty, or force us to change and re-evaluate our lives, then the truth will evade us and the obvious will not seem obvious. Scripture says that God permits the operation of error in those who do not love the truth.

There will always be elements of the truth that we cannot fully grasp, because God is not to be fully understood, so some faith is also required and we are all blind in a spiritual sense to some extent.

Answer 4

Paley comes closer. Although evolution undoubtedly happened, I personally do not believe that it could have been unguided. On the other hand, an atheist is guaranteed to believe not only that it could have been, but in fact was.

the Roman Catholic Church officially believes that Aquinas's arguments establish the existence of God, but I do not know anybody else who entertains that idea. Aquinas was preaching to the converted.

SUPER ATHEIST
Presumably she means that nobody has got the foggiest idea how abio-genesis happened. Admittedly it's not a good idea for a theist to rely upon a God of the gaps.

Answer 5

Dreadful! Even ignoring the terrible grammar, you seem to have failed to grasp the Arguments themselves.

Not to mention the fact that both these gentlemen's 'proofs' are as insubstantial as tissue and have been utterly discredited. And yet you haven't mentioned a refutation!

What on earth does "one major flaw in Darwinian Theory is that it relies on something automatically existing, or appearing out of nothing." mean?

If you get more than one point for trying for this mess, I fear for whatever education system you're enmired in.

CD

Answer 6

Everyone might agree that there are unicorns, but such agreement would not force them to exist...

At its heart, your argument is flawed for failing to realize the central necessity of evidence to establish any truth to a claim of any God or Gods. Aquinas may have argued well at times, but even Clarence Darrow couldn't form omnipotence from sheer myth.

PS: failure to explain the creation of life is immaterial to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. That's a matter of abiogenesis.

Answer 7

any argument is flawed as it is based on a belief which is not based on fact like the fact the universe exists doesnt mean it was created or a first cause exists that is also personal. all any argument for the existance of something that can not be seen in any way is that their is a reason to believe without seeing proof, which is by my reasoning not proof at all.

Answer 8

Erm is this an A level question?
Personally I think its too long. In the conclusion you're just meant to sum up your ideas. You don't have to write out a mini essay.
Pick out your main points then if possible add an extra dimension by asking a rhetorical question that you haven't asked or mention a point that you haven't already mentioned in your essay.
And always have a personal conclusion.

Answer 9

hi BQ well, I'm not a girl so can't give you an opinion but i like Amitabh Bachchan & Shah Rukh Khan the most because i watch alot of movies for them .... i wish to work with Amitabh Bachchan one day ..... you can't know how much Egyptians people like him ... he is the best Indian actor for Egyptians ... i'll tell you something ... there was a cinema only show his movies not any other, he visited it when he came to Egypt for Cairo festival. about the others i don't know them i only know Hrithik Roshan from you but i didn't watch his movies but sure i will. PS ; where is Mr Ranbir Kapoor he is so handsome as well ... lol thanks yahoo

Answer 10

I don't think anyone can prove or disprove God's existence - although reason can help us to consider whether God's existence is a reasonable belief to hold.