More handpicked essays just for you.
How convincing is the teleological argument for the existence of God
How convincing is the teleological argument for the existence of God
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Callarman’s argument is that Chris McCandless made a lot of mistakes because he was arrogant and that he had no business going into Alaska with his Romantic silliness and he says that he was just crazy. I disagree with Callarman’s argument because I think that Chris McCandless (Alexander Supertramp) was not arrogant I think that he just wanted to learn new things. I also disagree because I think that Chris did have a reason to go to Alaska or else he would not have done it even if it just to go because he likes nature, and I don’t think that he was crazy at the beginning but I agree that he did start to get crazy when he was stuck in the wild on the bus. I don’t think that Chris is arrogant I think that he is just a guy who wants to learn new things about nature and just the world in general.
Weaknesses of the Argument Paley gives the example of the watch being complex, so it must have a creator. Things can be complex, without having a designer, for example a snowflake. If we were created by an intelligent designer, then why are we not perfect? If God created us, then why do babies die young? Why do natural disasters kill millions and millions of people?
In particular Chris Mccandless should be supported for he had things happen to him that led up to the point where he wanted to go into the wild to get away from his old life and created a new one for himself to have more opportunities. Others may think he shouldn’t be supported just because he some bad flaws he had and also that he just left his sister who he actually got along with, but here are some reasons that are logical and reasonable to why Chris Mccandless should be supported. One of the reasons why readers should support Chris McCandless is because he is generous, he gave people inspiration, or felt inspired by others, and like in the book Krakauer tells us “Chris’s Father suggested the boy had probably been inspired. ”(94),his way of living inspired everyone that you can live anyway you want.
I am amazed that Christians still use the worn-out " Irreducible complexity " argument which has been proven to be untenable and false every time they are brought up. This article is no different than the " flagellum Motor, " an organism seemed to be so complex it could not function if it were changed in anyway or if its " fine tuning " was off. Then came real science which had proven that you could remove part of the motor and it still functioned in one way or another and POOF!!!! another Christian apologetic false claim gone. It should be noted that this article is from the " Institute For Creation Research " which as the name implies is a Christian apologetic agenda driven organization which means nothing they say is credible or at
Warren McCleskey was convicted of armed robbery and the murder of a white police officer. At his trial the jury found him guilty and sentenced him to death. McCleskey challenged his death sentence and claimed that he was being subjected to racial discrimination and provided statistical evidence showing racial disparities in the administration of death sentences. He also presented strong evidence showing that African Americans have been disproportionately sentenced to capital punishment compared to white Americans. While I obviously think that what McCleskey did was wrong, I definitely think that he was right to challenge the constitutionality of his death sentence.
Ignored can lead to catastrophic consequences. In the story into the wild by Jon Krakauer the main character Chris Mccandless attempts to conform with nature alone with transcendental ways but dies as a result. Mccandless resolution was unjustified because he left his friends and family to distress, he did not have adequate materials to sustain himself in the wilderness and he overestimated himself throughout his journey. Some may argue that it was his right to strive for his goal by his philosophy but he ignored offers that would have kept him alive. Mccandless followed his journey to Alaska.
In the novel, Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer, Cellarmans argues that Chris McCandless has been “bright and ignorant” (Callarman). I disagree with Cellarmans’ argument, because Chris McCandless wasn't bright and ignorant, he just wanted to be free in Alaska without his family. McCandless family where judgmental and ignorant towards him, although he did not let that get towards him as well as affecting him as much. It is often to say that McCandless wrote quotes every day because he wanted to say at the time what he felt.
For this disputation, I had the pleasure of arguing against the topic of be it resolved that you can convince a non-believer to affirm the existence of God using philosophical arguments. As the opposing side, Sarah and I counter argued the following: the argument from motion, the ontological argument, Pascal’s Wager, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument. The argument from motion argues that it is only possible to experience that which exists, and people experience God, therefore God must exist; however it can be counter argued that since faith cannot be demonstrated or experienced, as it is unseen, God cannot exist.
Lewis proved he was not one for hesitation when it came to voicing his theories about the universe. Carefully manufacturing his first theory with inductive reasoning, Lewis is sure to incorporate logical thinking in his argument for the Law of Human Nature by pointing out different pieces of evidence to larger, more universal statements. He makes general observations after comparisons with different universal laws as well as different civilizations throughout time. Following these remarks, he delves further into his theory that people don’t need to be taught the Law of Nature, but that almost everyone knows it by nature. In the second paragraph, Lewis further establishes logical persuasion by pointing out his “Power Behind” theory with deductive reasoning.
A successful argument is logically and factually strong. Barry Stroud’s Cartesian Skeptical argument is logically and factually strong - it uses a modus ponens argument form. First I will explain his argument (Car-Skep) in support of his view demonstrating our lack of knowledge of the external world and then I will explain his argument in support of a controversial premise in (Car-Skep). I will explain both arguments, state why Car-Skep is cogent/successful, state an argument made by a critic, defend Stroud’s Car-Skep argument with the inclusion of supporting arguments made by other philosophers. Stroud’s argument is successful because it is one that is logically and factually strong.
David Hume is a an empiricist (knowledge is gained from sense experience)which has play’s a heavy role in his work. His views are made apparent in his work Dialogues where he raises a series of devastating objections to the teleological argument. One of his objections is that there is a lack of evidential basis. The problem Hume is trying to address in this objection is that there is no pattern of correlation between universes and designers that has been observed. This leads to a lack of evidence for the argument in regards to the best explanation claim.
Both James and Clifford have valid arguments and both have an equal number of flaws; however, James’s argument makes more sense to me. In Clifford’s argument every belief must be justified. This becomes extreme difficult to achieve when put into practice because sometimes you need to believe without sufficient evidence. For example, much of the science world starts out with a conjecture and then they follow the scientific method to prove or disprove the conjecture. According to Clifford this belief would be unjustified as the scientist would need sufficient evidence first.
The objection addressed the validity of the argument which had the premise 1, nothing is the efficient cause of itself except God and premise 2, a chain of causes cannot be infinite. The argument thus concludes there must be a first cause. This conclusion agrees with my thesis that Saint Thomas Aquinas’s argument formulated in the second way leads to a valid argument, which concludes that there must be a first cause and that God
This argument, if sound, thus pushes us into skepticism. Nevertheless, this essay will show how our intuitions and an examination of the argument suggest that the argument is in fact sound, in spite of its skeptical implications. Thereafter, an objection from Dretske will be considered. Dretske argues that P1 is false and that consequently, the argument is unsound. Dretske's argument attempts to disprove P1 by denying closure under known entailment
Teleology basically endorses that the ends satisfy the means. If it happened then by nature, it was meant to happen.
