i need some help. i attached two pictures below from the article : In 2015 two columnists at www.everyjoe.com (one, a religious catholic, the other, a philosophical atheist) discussed a series of issues relating to religion, philosophy, and morality. Can the existence of God be proven? (would really appreciate the help to summarize the main arguments made by the authors to answer this question)thank you so so much! **Topic #3: Can the Existence of God be Proven****John C. Wright, Theist**The question is whether the existence of God can be proved?The answer is not only yes, but yes, obviously, by probative argument rather than deductive proof, for the theist model fits the facts of nature and human nature better than the alternative.Is the proof sufficient to persuade the skeptic? The answer is no, obviously. Probative arguments require a nicety of judgment which not all men possess, especially on topics where their pride and guilt combine to blind them.Can the existence of God be made a reasonable hypothesis?That answer to that is that anything can be made into a reasonable hypothesis merely by answering the objections the hypothesis raises. All hypotheses raise questions. Unreasonable hypotheses rest on farfetched assumptions to answer such questions, and the more farfetched the answers, the less reasonable is the hypothesis. The more reasonable hypothesis is the one that most elegantly answers all legitimate questions.Hence the question we should be asking is whether the existence of God is a more reasonable hypothesis, one requiring fewer and less farfetched ad hoc explanations, than the alternative.One can prove the existence of God theoretically in two ways.The first is the experimental way: Be a Christian, be baptized, go to confession and mass, and see whether or not the promises of Christ are kept. This requires a massive and wholehearted commitment alien to the spirit of experimentalism. It would be akin to joining the army or getting married experimentally. Alas, the spirit of cool experiment would forbid the spirit of loyalty to the corps or the spirit of erotic romance which are the essential features of those institutions.What about such an experiment by proxy? Watching others who have joined, and hearing their testimony? Unfortunately, and here I speak only for my own denomination, the sinners and Pharisees and Laodiceans outnumber the saints, so I am unsure how any proxy study would do any good. If you studied marriage by proxy, but never experienced the ecstasy of sexual intercourse with a woman totally in love with you and you with her, your results would be inconclusive. If you studied warriors but never yourself died for your land, you could not know whether it is sweet and fitting.The second is the observational way: Wait until God incarnates Himself, listen to His words, discover if they are wise, hear what He says, observe the various feats He does which humans cannot do It would not prove the case beyond the capacity of an imaginative skeptic to invent reasons to disbelieve - a cunning imposture could, perhaps, falsify this evidence, or elves or Martians with their magic or psychic powers mimic the events described in the Gospel. The difficulty here is that the hypothesis used to explain the events lacking God require more elaborate and more farfetched assumptions than the hypothesis not lacking.Now, you dear reader, unless you have a handy time machine at hand and in good repair, are not in a position to perform this observation.Hence, the evidence hence needs must be indirect. We are not dealing with a scientific theory, like Einstein's theory of relativity, so it is no use insisting on seeing the physical proof of a nonphysical thing. We are dealing with a general explanation to cover historical and prehistorical and eschatological events, an explanation which attempts to explain by what we cannot see the things we can see. In other words, it is just like Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin's theory likewise is a nonphysical thing, attempting to explain events in prehistory and in the far future, of which the physical proof can only suggest. It is generally accepted because the alternative theories of Lamarckianism or special creation have less explanatory power, that is, they raise more serious objections.If God exists, the obvious objections are threefold:First, if God exists, and He is the benevolent and omnipotent sovereign creator, why is there such injustice and suffering in the world? Either He will not cure evil or He cannot. If He would and cannot, then He is not all-powerful, and if not all-powerful, ergo not God; or if He could but will not, then He is not benevolent, and hence is a devil, ergo not God.Likewise, why is there a multiplicity of tales of gods in pagan lands? For surely God would not tolerate that falsehoods be said about Him.Second, the order of nature as examined by physics gives us sufficient knowledge of the physical universe that God is not needed as an explanation.Third, God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent. An omniscient being cannot have free will, as perfect foreknowledge prevents the possibility of any freely-willed decision between multiple courses of possible action. Likewise, omnipotence prevents the need for action, since all things instantly would adhere to whatever the divine will was at any moment, without

Sociology is the systematic study of human society, behaviour, and the underlying structures and…

Answered: i need some help. i attached two…

Social Psychology (10th Edition)

10th Edition

ISBN:9780134641287

Author:Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers

Publisher:Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers

Chapter1: Introducing Social Psychology

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1RQ1

See similar textbooks

Related questions

Question

i need some help. i attached two pictures below from the article : In 2015 two columnists at www.everyjoe.com (one, a religious catholic, the other, a philosophical atheist) discussed a series of issues relating to religion, philosophy, and morality.

Can the existence of God be proven?

(would really appreciate the help to summarize the main arguments made by the authors to answer this question)

thank you so so much!