Philosophy Paper on Gods Existence

Tiera Suggs R. McCashland philosophical strategy ci Final Paper Final Philosophy Paper I anyow oppose Bertrand Russells view that believing in idol is vapid and that of human being poor imagination. I ordain use Tim Holts Philosophy of Religion to show how believing in paragon is much transparent than non. Russell uses a few arguments to try an disprove the humanity of God in why I am non a Christian. I will address the First Cause principle, the Design Theory Argument, and the righteousity Argument. I will touch briefly on what Russell reckons and then use everyday and widely accepted theories to overthrow Russell.Russell uses many reasons to support his disbelief of God and refutes many known theories explaining God but I will center on his main points. First of which being, The First-Cause Argument, which basically means everything we know has a crap and no matter how far back existence is traced, thither is chain events of causes leading back to bingle ca use. Russell rebuked this argument by quoting an chronicle by John Stuart Mills,My father taught me that the question Who made me? cannot be answered, since it promptly suggests the further question Who made god? That sentence for Russell confirms that God mustnt exist, he also says our poor imagination created the idea of God (Russell why I am not a Christian). Russell fails to logically disprove Gods existence because he did not adequately cast doubt upon the many opposite arguments that have a clearer, more philosophical standpoint. The cosmogonical Argument patently states (1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.? (2) The earth exists.? Therefore? (3) The universe has a cause of its existence.? (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.? Therefore? (5) God exists.It does not seem logical or ideal to use an authors history to try and disprove a widely accepted theory. Any soulfulness can take a located of ideas and say, this is wrong because but one must justify ones point. Russells argument carries no weight because it is not adequately philosophical. Even if you try and refute the cosmogonical Argument on the grounds of saying, if everything has a cause then shouldnt God? The Kalam Cosmological Argument takes it a step further by saying thither is a difference between God and the universe, the universe has a rootage in time subjecting it to be caused/created.Since God has no beginning in time, then he is not subject to be caused/created (Holt Philosophy of Religion). The Cosmological Argument used along with the Kalam Cosmological Argument make Russells standpoint weaken and seem arbitrary. The beside point Russell attacks in Why I am not a Christian is the Design Theory, which states Everything in the world is made just so that we can debate to drop dead in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it. Russell denies that belief by saying, ince the time of Darwin we understand more better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the institution of adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it. What makes his standpoint indistinct is the fact that he is act to simplify the complexity of the nature of humans and leaves it to coincidence.. Yes we adapt to our surroundings but how? By chance? That is too unbelievable, organs as complicated as the heart or lungs function consecutive because of chance?That notion is not logical. In Philosophy of Religion, The teleological Argument however is, stating that the world was created and exists with a purpose in mind. The universe is a ordered system and nothing is left to chance. The Teleological Argument is more believable than Russells just because so called reasonings. Russells next argument is that of morality. He believes God is not the reason for right and wrong, because if you believe in God, you believe he is all good. So how can something all good create wrong? But one can refute Russells statement by simply saying, morality is a set of teachings so there ust be a commander (Holt Philosophy of religion). The formal Moral Argument states (1) Morality consists of a set of commands.? (2) For every command there is a commander.? Therefore? (3) There is a commander that commanded morality.? (4) Commands yet carry as much authority as does their commander.? (5) Morality carries supreme authority.? Therefore? (6) The commander that commanded morality carries ultimate authority.? (7) Only God carries ultimate authority.? Therefore? (8) The commander that commanded morality is God.? Therefore? (9) God exists. The Formal Moral Argument seems more plausible than Russells theory.It follows a clear system and answers questions of morality, while Russell just bears the finding of God is good so there cannot be bad. Aga in, Russells theories are illogical and in boom compared to ones he is trying to disprove. Russell fails to clarify his statement, his argument is not convincing and is a premature conclusion about God that he cannot even logicalate. Russell obviously holds some conceptive convictions against Christianity and God in general. But his reasoning and conclusions are not philosophical, because rendering them illogical and mundane. Russells argument is not as valid as he thinks.One needs reasons in proving or disproving something, not just banters and foolish inquires. Russell is foolish in saying God was created by humans with a poor overactive imagination, he is filled with more imagination to believe the universe and everything in it was just a random coincidence. Russells attempts are weak and vague, not enough to disprove complete logical statements. Works Cited Holt, Tim. Philosophy of Religion. 2008. 23, Nov. 2009. . Russell, Bertrand. Why I am not a Christian. edited by John R. Lenz for the Bertrand Russell Society. 1996. 23, Nov. 2009.