Essay - Philosophies of Religion Generally Fall into One of Two Camps:...

Philosophies of religion generally fall into one of two camps: theistic and atheistic views. The former provides pro*****s or arguments in favor of the existence of God, whereas the latter *****fers proofs or ***** denying the existence of God. Most ***** these philosophies are rooted in logical ***** rhetoric, but some ***** based more on subjectivity and personal experience than ***** logic or reason. Subcategories of main arguments define and distinguish each of ***** philosophical *****. For example, theistic philosophies include teleo*****al *****, cosmological arguments, ontological arguments, moral arguments, arguments related to self-interest such as Pascal's "wager," ***** rooted in the experience of miracles, ***** arguments rooted in religious *****. Each of these dist*****ct ***** approaches the nature and existence ***** God differently and offers different proofs for the ***** of a Supreme Being. Similarly, atheistic philosophies range in their approach. Main atheistic refutations of the existence of ***** include the primary supposition that the burden of proof rests with the theist, as by default science has yet ***** find evidence proving the existence of God. Other a*****ic ***** include the existence of evil, ***** the conflict between divine omnipotence and human free will. All philosophies of ***** ***** their corresponding oppositions.

The teleological argument examines the complex ***** of the universe and in light ***** its diversity and complexity supposes that only a God or Supreme Being could be responsible ***** cre*****tion. Teleological arguments are often called arguments of design, because they base themselves on the biological or physical designs of the known *****. The ***** criticism ***** the teleological argument would point to its lack of causality: ***** fact ***** the universe appears to be intelligently designed does not necessarily mean that there is an intelligent designer.

***** cosmological ***** in favor of the ***** of God ***** similar in ***** it points to the physical ***** as proof of God's existence. However, the cosmological argument seeks for an ultimate cause ***** creati*****. The primary objection ***** the cosmological argument raises ***** issue of the ultimate cause: if everything in the cosmos h***** a causal *****ce, then what, ***** anything, can cause God? Some cosmological *****s ***** temporal in nature, that is, they refer to the nature time when determining the ***** of creation. Because it is theoretically possible that God has no cause and is a ********** force or being, the cosmological argument cannot actually prove ***** God exists, only that God is one possible cause of the universe.

The ontological ***** for the ***** ***** God rests entirely on the logical fallacy of a priori re*****soning. While a logically cohesive whole, ***** argument falls short of *****fering any clear-cut proof ***** the existence of God. Descartes' "I think therefore I am" is an ***** argument that demonstrates the difficulty in us*****g ontology to prove ***** ex*****tence ***** an abstract being or concept. However, the ontological argument is appealing for ***** very fact that ***** is as abstract ***** the principle of God itself.

Arguments in *****