Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Chinyere Hatton
While each argument has strengths to them, it is not possible to ignore their
weaknesses. For the Cosmological argument, I know the key weakness is the
lack of knowledge we have. Although humans are finding out new information
everyday, there is still so much we have to learn. I believe that it is nave for
humans to think that we can explain everything in the universe, while there is
still so much we have yet to learn and experience. Why must we strive to find
out about the existence of the universe, is it not enough that we are simply part
of it.
In a society where we rely on proof as a means of justification, the Ontological
argument falls short as there is not much evidence or a consensus for the
premise of the argument.
The Ontological Argument is not a useful argument is proving the existence of
God as simply because you imagine something existing, such as unicorns or
fairies or God, doesnt mean it does. Although the premise is logical, if you do
not agree with it the argument falls apart. While the arguments deductive
nature can be its strength, it also one of its weaknesses. If the premises of the
argument are true then the conclusion must also be true, hence if we accept
the premises of the ontological argument we call into logical contradiction if we
deny the existence of God. The assumption that existence is a predicate is also
a weakness. No evidence or consensus of the premise
Attempting to define something into existence
Evolution has taught society that complex organisms can be achieved through
the slow process of random genetic mutations, a concept supported by natural
selection. This is widely accepted and I perceive this as the largest flaw in the
Teleological argument. This concept of evolution nullifies the need for a
designer as evolution can be the blind watchmaker. Even if there was a
designer of the universe I think it is simplistic to think that there is only one
designer. Similar to a car needing more than one designer, the universe could
need more than one as well. This would support the concept of polytheism and
make monotheism inoperative.
Conclusion:
Chinyere Hatton