There are various considerations that have been made regarding having a good turning design argument. With this in mind, it brings about the aspect of thinking about the reasoning behind making such remarks or arguments. Evil is something that society has been experiencing this phenomenon for the longest time. It has been something that is associated with the faith that people usually have. Philosophers usually make these arguments intending to try to better comprehend the way aspects of religion and its relationship with their beliefs that exist. But there are people who do not want to believe, hence making various concepts and expectations they may have. Atheistic have been seen to be questioning the normal way people comprehend that view evil and the overall existence of God as a supreme being. Therefore, this paper aims to make the necessary reconstructions when it comes to making the arguments for atheism, as they try to make various objections to the existence of God.
Different rationales have been made in order to explain the existence of God. The lack of proof, the abhorrence issue, the disputation from nonbelievers and disagreeing disclosures, and the failure of distortion of the origination’s dismissals are, on the whole, reasonings for not having faith in divinities. People frequently have the idea of the existence of God by making various astrological predictions. Reflective atheists, on the other hand, have presented numerous alternative justifications for their position. This chapter’s goal is to provide the reader with a representative sample of such explanations, as well as some early remarks on their validity. Many atheists have a similar attitude toward those of us who believe in the Judeo-Christian God (Collins 187). Theists and astrologists, in their eyes, are equally reckless in their readiness to construct views about the world that go well beyond what the evidence supports.
At the very least, formal theoretical and methodological differences have distinguished important Christian apologists. At the same time, many apologists use a range of ways to defend the Christian faith and do not fit neatly into a single “cookie-cutter” idea of how to do so. By looking at the various approaches or idealized forms of Christian apologetic techniques. To compare the strategies of leading apologists to those idealized ways by looking at their real apologetic arguments. The works of apologists have advocated for combining two or more of these four main methodologies directly. After that, we will look at the work of apologists who have advocated for combining two or more of these four main methodologies directly (Collins 187). Therefore, if an atheist wanted to, he or she could try to soften the premises of the argument in a number of ways. The argument states unequivocally that no one has evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. However, there is a type of atheist who is willing to accept that, for all he knows, someone has evidence while asserting that he has none.
The most obvious way that a lack or insufficiency of evidence could work against our belief in God’s existence has already been stated: we need proof in order to have cause to believe any hypothesis about the world, and we are in no good position to believe if there is none or next to none. However, there is another, more subtle way in which a lack or scarcity of proof may be seen by some as a specific attack on the Judeo-Christian God. It is hence become essential to make arguments and at the same try to prove the using various rationality. The rationality of theism is a contentious collection of thirteen brand-new papers by eminent philosophers and academics (Collins 188). Its goal is to provide complete theistic responses to conventional arguments against God’s existence, as well as rebuttals of current influential criticisms of theism.
For a variety of reasons, the atheist may wish to avoid the parallel. The lack of any kind of evidence justifies agnosticism concerning the existence of an unseen world. When confronted with the towering fence, we know that gardens frequently have things growing in them, and this prevents us from believing that the garden is empty. In the case of unseen goblins, however, there is no corresponding belief that necessitates caution (Collins 187). Similarly, an atheist who believes there is no proof for God may argue that in the case of Judeo-Christian teaching, there is no corresponding belief or reason to assume theism is prima facie rational.
In the domain of human interactions, I think the atheist looks for analogies. By working with the available argument, the arguments have met the intended purposes. If I want you to adore me, I will make myself very visible to you. Additionally, I would require when you to act in accordance with my wishes, I will make them as clear as possible, especially if I am clever enough to present them in the most persuasive and appealing way possible. Unequivocally, human interplay searches for analogies, where one’s adoration can be achieved by increasing their visibility.
Work Cited
Collins, Robin. “The Anthropic Teleological Argument.” The Philosophy of Religion: 187-196.