Miscellaneous Responses to Atheistic Arguments

Home > Philosophy of Religion Articles > Miscellaneous Responses to Atheistic Arguments
  • File

    Baggaley, John


    Is it OK to Believe in God?

    "J. L. Mackie, in his book The Miracle of Theism, attempts to prove theism irrational. His underlying premise is that if he can show that there is no proof for the existence of God, then it would be irrational to believe in God. More crucial than his objections to the Ontological Argument and the Cosmological Argument, is his chapter on belief without reason. All of his efforts depend upon his ability to show that belief in God requires proof. However, Mackie fails to do so because his arguments are only tangential to the issue at hand."
  • File

    Guthrie, Shandon L.


    Atheism and the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: Why Atheists Cannot Avert the Burden of Proof

    "Atheism has historically been defined as the belief that God does not exist. In contemporary circles in the philosophy of religion, many definitions have surfaced that call this original designation into question. Should atheism be perceived in a historical context, or have atheists proposed novel definitions in an effort to skirt their responsibility in defending their conclusion? As a result, some atheists attempt to thwart their share of the burden of proof because they feel that atheism is the epistemologically 'default' position. This essay surveys the difficulty of definitions with respect to atheism and why atheists shoulder an equal share of the burden of proof."
  • File

    Markosian, Ned


    On The Argument from Quantum Cosmology Against Theism

    "In a recent Analysis article, Quentin Smith argues that classical theism is inconsistent with certain consequences of Stephen Hawking's quantum cosmology.1 Although I am not a theist, it seems to me that Smith's argument fails to establish its conclusion. The purpose of this paper is to show what is wrong with Smith's argument."
  • File

    Nagasawa, Yujin and Campbell Brown


    The Best of All Possible Worlds

    "The Argument from Inferiority holds that our world cannot be the creation of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being; for if it were, it would be the best of all possible worlds, which evidently it is not. We argue that this argument rests on an implausible principle concerning which worlds it is permissible for an omnipotent being to create: roughly, the principle that such a being ought not to create a non-best world. More specifically, we argue that this principle is plausible only if we assume that there is a best element in the set of all possible worlds. However, as we show, there are conceivable scenarios in which that assumption does not hold."
  • File

    Strickland, Lloyd


    On The Necessity Of The Best (Possible) World

    "Many have argued that if God exists then he must necessarily create the best possible world (hereafter: bpw), which entails that the bpw necessarily exists, and is therefore the only possible world. But without any scope for comparison, the superlative term `best' is clearly inappropriate and so the bpw cannot be the bpw at all! As such, it must be impossible for God to create it. Hence if God exists then he must of necessity make something that is impossible to create! Because of its conclusion, I call this the repugnant argument. I consider a number of possible responses to this argument."