Theist Argument Analysis

that there exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or lesser evil.”(Rowe 370) In that case, the theists counterargument is as solid as that of the atheists’. With the G.E. Moore shift, the theists are able to argue for God’s existence without denying the premise presented by the atheists. However, the problem with those two objections is that they don’t necessarily prove God’s existence. For the objections only prove that it is difficult to assume God’s non-existence. In that argument, theists are not able to refute the argument of the atheists they are merely able to evade it. For an evasion of an argument will never make for a valid argument.

I intend to support a form of Materialism, or as some people call it “corporealism” which assumes that “bodily continuity is an essential ingredient in personal identity.” In order for humans to survive death or continuity must not be engrained solely in our bodies, but rather in our souls. Now, we are again presented with another theistic concept that does not allow us to point to any hard proof. To our definitive knowledge, we have no souls. Furthermore the existence of souls would imply that our continuity is either engrained in a combination of our soul and body or solely our soul, supposing that we have

And although the concept of an “unembodied being” does not coincide with our perceptual reality does not mean that the concept can not be true. In a sense, we merely refute the idea of the after-life because it does not seem logical and thus, we do not have a legitimate argument against the after life. A being wholly composed of a soul need not to move or talk, but the being may only “imagine thinking, wondering, doubting, and so on,”(Hospers 281) and all of those actions can more or less be performed without a