Skip to content

Reasonable Faith: Chapter 4- The Existence of God (2)


Don’t really know what the best objections to the teleological argument are. I suppose one might be with regards to what a good explanation actually is. I don’t think I have the best response to it. I’ll have to keep my eyes open.

The ontological argument doesn’t really make sense to me. Why is it that the maximally perfect being must exist in all worlds if it exists in one? Is existence a characteristic, or is it necessary to have characteristics?

The moral argument I consider the worst. It’s true that most people make fairly lame responses. Still, I don’t know how I’d escape good and bad being arbitrary. Okay, so let’s ground goodness in what a loving and just God commands. But how do I non-arbitrarily ascribe God with those characteristics? Can’t someone with a different definition of God simply ascribe ultimate hatred to him, and try to avoid the arbitrariness accusation? If we say that God is perfect (maximally good), therefore he is loving and just, that just makes a circular argument. God is maximally good, which entails he is loving and just, therefore God is the basis for what is good.

The advice to Christians is especially telling. This is a practiced group. No wonder atheists get trounced so often. The most studied Christians just know the arguments better.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: