Mr. Robert Fleeger

I. Introduction

The word perfection is thrown around quite often, but what exactly does perfection mean and is it humanly possible to fathom such an idea? The New Oxford American Dictionary defines perfection as “the condition, state, or quality of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects.” This interpretation in my opinion dances around the meaning of the word, as it defines it in terms of what is lacks, rather than what it encompasses. Other dictionaries define perfection similarly, declaring that it is a state of flawlessness. This in itself hints that perhaps perfection is unknowable if a tangible definition is unable to be construed. How is one to know whether or not something is free from all faults? Who is the authority on such matters?

In subjective terms, the individual can make claims to experiencing or knowing perfection, but these assertions can in no case be made with complete assurance. There are no objective examples of perfection, thus the individual has no basis for making claims of perfection; there are simply no known ideal objects or concepts for comparison. Without any concrete notion of perfection, it is impossible to know such an idea. It may be possible to understand representations or derivations of perfection, but where certainty is concerned, it is beyond human comprehension.

II. Analysis

I feel the philosopher John Locke would contend that certainty of perfection is well within the reaches of human comprehension. He argues that we come to know things through perception, reason and inference, memory, and testimony. While he does concede that each of these attributes are flawed, he states that when used in tandem they can yield certainty. Locke ranks perception as the most important of these factors leading to knowledge, followed by reason and memory which carry equal importance, and finally testimony. He conveniently chooses perception to be the foremost factor in this process as his theories are predominantly based upon empiricism.

Locke believes that the mind is a tabula rasa which organizes raw sense data by a “simple operation of the mind.” The aforementioned raw sense data is information derived from the senses. This organization of perceptions leads to ideas, which are in a sense written onto the tabula rasa and are available for access by one’s memory. Locke strengthens his claim to empiricism by denouncing Socrates’ idea of innatism, the idea that all knowledge has been with us since birth, through the examples of universal assent, children and idiots, and noble savages. In short, he asserts that what we know must be environmental; knowledge is a spatial experience.

With those principles in mind, I believe Locke would approach the idea of perfection in the following manner: certainty of perfection can be achieved through the application of the four ways in which we come to know things. To demonstrate Locke’s method, let’s take for example the perfect pizza. First and foremost, Locke would pose the questions “How do you perceive this pizza?” and “What are your senses telling you?” The subject would first look at the pizza and declare that in their mind, the pizza looks perfect; it is without any flaws. The subject would then take a bite of the pizza and feel as if the pizza could not possibly taste any better than it does. The crust is just the right texture, the cheese is cooked to a golden finish, and the sauce is spiced exquisitely; this is truly the food of the Gods.

With perception of perfection fulfilled, the subject would then be asked to use reason and inference to test their thoughts. The individual may then be exposed to another pizza that is not as appetizing. Maybe this pizza is too cold and the crust is burnt. With this lesser pizza available for comparison, the subject would then be able to infer that if the second pizza is not perfect, then the first pizza has the potential to be perfect. The individual could then strengthen their claim to knowledge by thinking back to past experiences. They may try to think if there has been a time when they were exposed to a better pizza. If they cannot, then their claim to perfection is warranted. The final way to solidify their claim would be to ask for outside testimony. They may offer a slice of their perfect pizza to a passer-by. If that person also agrees that the pizza is perfect, then the individual has a solid claim for certainty of perfection.

Immanuel Kant on the other hand I believe would be not as apt to allow for claims of certainty in regards to perfection. Kant is an advocate of the ding-an-sich, or the thing in itself. It is the idea that any object or idea is unknowable; only representations of it can be known. This philosophy is borrowed in part from Plato who coined the notions of the realms of being and of becoming, which Kant refers to as the noumenal and phenomenal realms. The phenomenal realm refers to that which is knowable and contains all that is perceivable by human senses, namely subjective representations of truth. The noumenal realm on the other hand is far more objective and is inclusive of ideals and certainty beyond human comprehension. Kant’s ding-an-sich resides in the noumenal realm, which is beyond human experience.

Kant philosophizes that these noumenal ideas vary in degrees of perfection and that the categories of understanding are what allow us to obtain knowledge about the world around us; to apprehend some semblance of the thing in itself. Knowledge of the world begins with the senses, but reason is what allows us to gain a fuller understanding of things than other people. The categories of understanding which allow for reasoning include quantity, quality, relation, and modality. These a priori aspects of knowledge can then be used to make a posteriori judgments, and thus form some order of representations.

Kant also acknowledges another way in which one can further their understanding of reality and that is through aesthetic experience. He says that by way of mediums such as art, good food, and music, that the individual is able to transcend empirical experience and gain an even further understanding of reality. It is a state of knowledge acquisition which is difficult to explain, as the individual uses an instrument above senses and reason to secure understanding. However, even with the combination of aesthetic experience and the categories of understanding, Kant claims that one can never know the ding-an-sich.

Once again using the example of the perfect pizza, I feel as though Kant may argue that the idea of pizza itself is an entity of perfection which resides in the noumenal realm. He seems to think that all ideas and objects that one perceives are merely representations of the idealness which an item posses. We may perceive a pizza to possess the quality of perfection, but because we can never know the ding-an-sich of a perfect pizza, this means we will never be certain in making such an assumption. What we consider to be a perfect pizza may actually be bad pizza in comparison to the idea of pizza that resides in the noumenal realm. Unfortunately, the thing in itself can never be known, therefore we will never know how close we are to experiencing perfection.

Aesthetic experience can give rise to an even greater understanding of perfection in the case of pizza, however. Food, along with art and music, is one of the few means which allow for a higher comprehension of reality. Beyond the use of categories of understanding for making judgments on what one may think to be the perfect pizza, the aesthetic event of consuming the pie yields knowledge surpassing that which could have been construed through senses and reason. This combination of apparatuses of the mind still falls short according to Kant, in reaching any certainty about idea of perfection; the most perfect form of an idea, the ding-an-sich, is unknowable.

III. Critique

I believe that perfection is an idea beyond human comprehension. My view is that without any objective notion of perfection, no claims of the concept can be undeniably withheld. As far as I know, there is no idea, concept, or object that is universally agreed upon as being perfect. Without any basis with which to make claims of perfection, any assertions of perfection are made with uncertainty. I acknowledge subjective claims of perfection to simply be derivations from the idea.

For example, in baseball when a pitcher throws a complete game without giving up a hit or walk, it is considered a perfect game. I feel that there are different levels of perfection that can be construed from this scenario. Let’s say three different pitchers all throw a perfect game; pitcher one throws the most strikeouts, pitcher two throws the least total pitches, and pitcher three receives a generous call from the umpire that preserves his perfect game. Even though by definition all three pitchers achieved the same perfection, the question could then be asked “did one player pitch a more perfect game than another?” The argument could be made that because pitcher three received a gratuitous call that his perfect game was not as perfect as pitcher one’s or two’s. There could also be debate or whether is it a more difficult task to throw more strikeouts or less total pitches in a game, which would question whether pitcher one or pitcher two pitched a more perfect game. There is no clear model to base perfection off of; there is only evidence that these pitchers reached some degree of perfection, as in relation to the normal pitching outing, they performed exceptionally well.

In this sense I am in agreement with the philosophy of Kant. I believe that we can only know representations of ideals. The ding-an-sich is something that can never quite be apparent to us, though we can get close to knowing it. We may be able to state that we eaten an incredibly good pizza, but we can never claim with certainty that we have eaten the perfect pizza; objects and ideas can only approach perfection. I also agree with him in that we use our senses for the basis of knowledge, but that reason plays a major part in giving credulity to what we constitute as fact, maybe even more-so than the senses. Without reason, we succumb to the fallacies associated with the senses. Because of how easily we can be deceived by the senses, I disagree with Locke on most of him assertions.

Locke bases his philosophy predominantly on something that is subjective and varies within each of us from time to time. If our senses could adequately be used to justify certainty, then there would be no need for math, science, or any type of research. I know Locke states that reason, memory, and testimony need to be used in conjunction with perception in order to obtain certainty, but he places much of his emphasis on the empirical portion of his postulate. Just because you may perceive of something as being perfect, that does not constitute validity.

I am also bothered by the fact that he considers perception to be a completely spatial experience and fails to acknowledge the aspect of time. Ideas of perfection undoubtedly change over time. If you were to declare a pizza perfect using Locke’s four criteria, but then try a different pizza a week later that surpasses the previous pizza in every way possible, what label do you now give each pizza? According the Locke, the original pizza would still be considered perfect; if it was once perfect, it is always perfect. If the second pizza is even better however, would it not also be considered perfect? You are now left with two perfect pizzas, one of which is superior to the other. This is an illogical dilemma that Locke’s philosophy fails to prevent. In conclusion, the objective and undefinable nature of the idea of perfection is what prevents it from being known with certainty.

I. Introduction

The Ten Commandments are considered to be universal laws which are practiced and preached by nearly everyone, from all corners of the world. Despite widespread agreement on the moral value in these rules, they are often and continually broken by society. One of the more compelling commandments is number seven: “Thou shall not commit adultery.” Most people would agree that it is in theory immoral to cheat on your spouse or significant other, yet it continually happens. One would think the possible dire consequences of being found out would be enough to deter the adulterer. Even television has made public the ramifications of being caught in the act through shows such as “Cheaters”, yet there are obviously many more people who will continue to cheat on their spouses, some of whom will never be caught.

There must be compelling reasons for people attempting to cheat on their significant others; otherwise it would not keep happening. Some people may simply be tired of going through the motions with their spouse and are looking for a one night stand. Others may simply feel the need to do something daring and exhilarating as a break from their mundane lives. Aside from the motives to consider, the question still remains whether it is moral or immoral to commit adultery. In theory, adultery is obviously not an ethical practice, but aside from theory it can have moral value. I feel the consequences must be examined in order to determine whether it is a moral endeavor or not. If the adulterer is not caught, this means there will be no consequences to be burdened and the action of adultery is morally justified. However, if the adulterer is caught in the act, the resulting ramifications are in most cases so horrible that adultery can not be considered ethical.

II. Analysis

The philosopher J.S. Mill’s approach to the moral dilemma of adultery would be grounded in his utilitarianistic school of thought. His basic belief is that which is ethical pleases most of the people most of the time. In order to determine how much pleasure an action will yield, Mill uses “Hedonistic Calculus”, which is based on a set of criteria that measure happiness. The first criterion of Hedonistic Calculus is certainty. This is a measure of how sure we are the action will produce happiness. In the case of adultery, the person committing adultery must certainly be fairly confident they are going to experience pleasure, and thus happiness. The next factor is intensity, which describes how happy the action will make people. The act of sexual intercourse typically produces a great deal of happiness. Duration, the next criteria, of happiness would not be very long, and thus would not be especially affirming of adultery. The next factor in Hedonistic Calculus is propinquity, which deals with how soon the happiness will result. In the case of adultery, the craving would be instantly gratified. Happiness is also measured by fecundity, which begs the question of how much happiness will the action produce by association. When committing adultery, typically only two people will be pleased and possibly many others will be harmed. The last factor in Hedonistic Calculus is purity, which asks if the action is tainted by guilt or reason. Adultery in most cases will be filled with guilt, unless the person committing the deed has absolutely no conscious at all.

When analyzing the Hedonistic Calculus, I feel Mill would argue that this specific summation of factors is only seen from the point of view of the adulterer. The only factors that are really deterring them from attempting adultery are purity and possibly fecundity. The sole reason these factors would steer them from cheating is that they may be caught. If they knew they would not be caught, then it seems that the Hedonistic Calculus would approve of adultery. However, if the Hedonistic Calculus was taken from the point of view of the adulterer’s spouse or family, then I think Mill would argue that adultery would make many more people unhappy than happy. Most of the time, adultery will only please a minority, and thus that makes it unethical.

Mill’s theory of utilitarianism also deals with sanctions. He believes there are two types of motives behind actions; external and internal. The theory behind internal sanctions is doing good for the concern of fellow human beings. External sanctions deal with doing good in order to avoid punishment. The motive behind not committing adultery would be external. The only reason they would not pursue the action would be because they are afraid of the ramifications. Mill argues that acting externally is the wrong way to act, and that we should act on an internal level. Thus I feel Mill would say adultery is not moral because external sanctions are what stop one from doing it. If we acted according to internal sanctions, which are superior to external sanctions, we would not even be thinking about adultery because of the love for our spouses and family.

Finally, the only way I think adultery could be possibly justified in the eyes of Mill would be through act utilitarianism. The situation would be viewed individually to determine how much happiness the adulterer would experience and if there was any possibility of them being caught, or how extreme the consequences would be. In a case where the adulterer’s spouse has gone frigid and they are desperate to get some, then I think Mill may argue that adultery would be morally backed. However, dealing with his theory of rule utilitarianism, I think Mill would probably make a general rule that all adultery is immoral. In this case, Mill would not advocate adultery at all.

On the contrary, I feel the philosopher Ayn Rand would advocate the act of adultery in all cases. Her beliefs are founded in ethical egoism, which is the theory claiming that which is in our rational best interest is selfishness. Rand is also highly opposed to altruism. She believes humans are selfish in nature and that we should act in accordance to these primordial ways. She states that even when it seems that we are trying to be courteous to others, we are in reality trying to benefit ourselves. Thus, there is no point in trying to act like we are unselfish and we should always act in ways to benefit ourselves. This theory is illustrated through the story of Prometheus. Prometheus stole fire from the Gods and shared it with fellow mankind. Upon becoming aware of this, the Gods were angered and Prometheus was tortured for the rest of eternity. If he had been looking out for himself, he would not have risked angering the Gods and thus would have been better off.

Likewise, Rand would say that we are better off being selfish when questioning whether it is ethical to commit adultery. If we feel compelled to go out and cheat on our spouses, we should do it. Even though there could be difficult consequences associated with adultery, we should not worry about how other people would feel. If we feel it is in our best interest, there is no reason why we should not do it. However, if when weighing out our decisions we come to the conclusion that committing adultery could be risky and possibly ruin ones life, then I feel Rand may argue that we would better benefit ourselves by not cheating on ones spouse.

To further expand on that thought, Rand provides a few arguments advocating ethical egoism which would seem to make adultery acceptable in all cases. Her argument on “wants and needs” states that if wants and needs are indeed personal, then we should only be concerned about ourselves. Furthermore her argument on privacy comes to the conclusion that deciding what is best for others is immoral. These arguments seem to universally support adultery. Rand argues that it is impossible to know what other people want, so therefore it would be acceptable to commit adultery in all cases because we do not know what our significant others are thinking. They may want us to go out and have a rendez-vous for all we know. Also, I feel Rand would argue that deciding adultery would harm your spouse and others is wrong because it is immoral to decide what is best for them. With that thought in mind, that must make adultery moral by association. Whether or not we think we will get away with adultery, it is perfectly reasonable to commit the act because we should only be concerned with ourselves. We can not know what other people want or what is best for them.

III. Critique

I believe that adultery can be justified as a moral action only if the adulterer knows for a fact that they will not be caught. It does not matter how many times they cheat; as long as they do not harm anyone else in the process, I believe that adultery can be viewed as ethical. I agree with Ayn Rand in that we should be selfish, at least some of the time. It can be invigorating to act according to our selfish primordial needs. I do put value in altruism, but there are times when I think it is important to put oneself ahead of others for the sake one’s mental well being. When an adulterer attempts to cheat on their spouse, there intrinsically must be something causing distress in the relationship, otherwise they would not consider that kind of action. Pursuing adultery may be in their best interest in that situation. Committing the act may make them feel relieved and even improve domestic relations as long as their spouse never finds out.

However, adultery can quite easily have the opposite effect. If there is any chance that the adulterer could be caught, then there is no way adultery can be morally justified. It is the type of action that can destroy relationships and tear families apart. In this sense, I agree with the utilitarianistic approach of J.S. Mill. When adultery hurts more people than it helps, then I think it is highly unethical. In nearly all cases of adultery, I believe this is the case. Most persons committing adultery are probably experiencing problems in their relationship. Cheating is probably one of the worst options they could choose to deal with those matters because it can only create more problems.

The question still remains whether or not it is possible to tell if there is any chance to be caught committing adultery. I feel that it can be a morally justified action if there is no chance to be caught. However, I do not think there is any way the adulterer can be 100% certain that their significant other will not find out about their escapades. The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry, meaning even the most carefully planned act of adultery can be exposed. For this reason, I believe adultery is universally unethical. The ramifications are too extreme to possibly justify adultery. In conclusion, while I believe that adultery can be considered moral if the adulterer knows they will not be caught, I believe there is no way to be certain of this, and therefore the pursuit of adultery is always unethical.

I. Introduction

The existence of a God or Gods has been in question for hundreds of years. There are several reasons why people believe in God, the first of which being tradition. Most people are brought up with the teachings of an existence a God or Gods by their parents or guardians. They simply accept the fact that a God exists because that is what their family has taught them and expects them to believe. Most likely, they will continue this trend and also teach their children to believe in God, just like their parents taught them. A second reason people believe in God is for a sense of community. People that believe in a similar God feel a connection and sense of togetherness. Going to weekly religious ceremonies and events can build a strong bond between otherwise dissimilar peoples. There is a feeling reassurance knowing that other people believe in the same thing as them. A third reason people choose to believe in God is for a sense of hope or comfort. They want to know that there is someone looking out for them, or that there is a cause behind “unexplainable” circumstances. A belief in God makes people feel at ease because they think things are always under control and that everything happens for a reason. Lastly, a belief in a God usually entails the hope for some kind of afterlife. This also gives people a reason to worship and respect a God, with optimism for a better life after they die.

However, there is no way to explicitly prove the existence of a God or Gods. While millions of people may believe in God, that does not mean that one exists. No one can prove that they have seen one. People may claim that they have seen God, but there are no actual pictures or videos of Him. Mentally and emotionally, people claim to say that they feel God’s presence. Again, this is not concrete proof for the existence of a God. Also, many “unexplainable” situations and circumstances, which people reason to be acts of God can be proven scientifically. There have been many advances in scientific fields in recent years that disprove many religious stories and assertions. This further supports the argument that there may be no God. For these reasons, I do not think that it is logical to believe in God.

II. Analysis

The philosopher Søren Kierkegaard argued that God is not logical, but that it is good to believe in Him and that God does indeed exist. He wrote the Concluding Unscientific Postscript in which he talks extensively about his beliefs and theories. Kierkegaard was a believer in psilanthropism, which means that he believed that Jesus was a man and not the son of God. This is important because it shows his leaniancy to deviate from standard Christian beliefs. In his writings, he also talks about speculative and experimental sciences. He states that they cannot be used to either prove or disprove God’s existance. Without solid proof that God does not exist, we cannot say for certain that God is not real. Kierkegaard also discusses the Lutheran belief that “man is saved by faith alone.” This is an important point in his discussion of God. He says that in order to understand God, one must take a “leap of faith.”

Kierkegaard illustrates this point with the story of Abraham and Isaac. In the story, God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac for him without reason. Abraham does as God says without argument. As Abraham is about to sacrifice his son, an angel stops him at the last moment. A ram appears in a nearby bush and Abraham sacrifices the ram instead of his son Isaac. God was simply testing Abraham to see if he would obey him. This story shows an abandonment of logic, but still a belief in God. One of the Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt not kill”, but God tells Abraham to kill. Abraham ignores logic, takes a “leap of faith”, and is rewarded. This furthers Kierkegaard’s point that God is not logical, but that he is good.

He says that logic is the wrong language to use when explaining God. He calls logic a syntagmatic language. It is a language that is open to objective interpretation, which is to say that ideas should be the same for all individuals. Thoughts can only be correct or incorrect with a syntagmatic language. This also infers that there are a fixed set of rules used when using logic to explain God. Instead, Kierkegaard says faith is the language that should be the used when trying to explain God. It is a paradigmatic language, which means that it is open to subjective interpretation. The meaning of God is open to the individuals trying to understand Him. There are no rights or wrongs in describing God. There are also no fixed rules when using faith, so the individual is free to believe in God however they want.

Kierkegaard himself was a believer in religious atomism. The first point of religious atomism is skepticism, which is a belief in suspending judgment. This goes along with his belief in the abandonment of logic when explaining God. The second point of religious atomism is romanticism, which entails adopting new ways of thinking. Kierkegaard certainly does this when explaining that God exists. He says that the existance of that which is unknown means that God exists, and that objectable knowledge is only obtainable through God. The last point of religious atomism is faith. Kierkegaard discusses this fairly thoroughly when talking about the “leap of faith” in the story of Abraham and Isaac. Faith is also the language needed to explain God. In conclusion, Kierkegaard would argue that is it not logical to believe in God, but that God exists and God is good.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell argued that God does not exist, and thus would argue that believing in God in not logical. He wrote the book Why I Am Not a Christian in 1939, which caused him to loose his job at Cambridge University for expressing his radical ideas. In this book, he wrote four arguments against the existance of God. His first argument was the casual argument, which questions Thomas Aquinas’ casual proof for the existence of God. The central premise of this argument is that God is an uncased cause, or the first cause. Russell critiques that there is no valid argument which supports this claim. He uses predicate instantiation to demonstrate this point. The first premise is that all things that exist have a cause. The second premise is that God doesn’t have a cause. In conclusion, God exists. This is an invalid argument however, because the conclusion does not follow. This is Russell’s first argument against God’s existance.

Russell’s second argument against the existance of God is the natural law argument, first proposed by Isaac Newton. The central premise of this argument is that there exist natural laws that reflect the reason of God. Another way of saying this is that things are the way they are because God intended them to be that way. God created laws of nature. Russell argues this premise with three points. First, he says that historically the approach doesn’t work. Using God to explain nature has never worked. Secondly, he argues that some natural laws aren’t laws at all. They are only human conventions, like gravity. Gravity is not the same everywhere, so it is not a law. Lastly, some natural laws are pure luck. Occurrences in nature happen with certain probabilities given circumstances. These three points sufficiently allow Russell to dismiss Newton’s natural law argument.

The next argument Russell critiques is Aquinas’ argument from design. The central premise of this argument is that there is order and purpose in nature, so therefore God exists as the designer. God must have been the one to make things the way they are. Russell argues that evolution is more plausible than God simply creating all creatures. Creatures have changed and adapted over time, as show by the works of Charles Darwin. This is not accounted for in the argument from design. Russell also argues that if God was the designer, then we would live in the best of possible worlds. However, Russell says that this is not the case, and therefore God does not exist.

Lastly, Russell argues Immanuel Kant’s argument for the remedying of injustice. The central premise of this argument states that injustice exists in the world, so there must be another world where justice is served. Another way of saying this is that there must be an afterlife to balance the faults in our current lives. Russell counters with the argument that there is no logical necessity for another world where justice is served. There is no reason why there should be an afterlife, and that injustice is simply not served. Since he believes this world does not exist, he in turn believes God does not exist. Through these four arguments, Russell proves why he believes God does not exist, and therefore, why it is not logical to believe in God.

III. Critique

I do not believe that it is logical to believe in God. In concern to the works of Kierkegaard, I disagree with his thoughts on speculative and experimental sciences. He says that these sciences cannot prove or disprove of God’s existance. I agree with this to an extent, but there are other sciences that can disprove of teachings in the bible about God. For example, the theory that God created all the creatures on earth in one day is highly unlikely. The findings of Charles Darwin fairly confidently prove that the creatures living today evolved over millions and millions of years. They were not perfectly created in one day. In conclusion, this does give some proof that science can dispute the existance and logicality of God.

I do agree with Kierkegaard’s belief that faith must be the language used when explaining God. I think is truly up to the individual to make God what they want God to be. There cannot be a standard set for a God because it is a subjective topic. Faith is to only way for people to explain God. Logic must be abandoned when discussing God because it is not possible to logical explain the “workings” of God. It is not logical to believe in God, so that is why faith is the only way to understand God.

Lastly, I disagree with Kierkegaard’s theory that God does exist. To prove this, he says that the existance of which is unknown allows us to assert that God exists. I disagree with this because he also says God is unknown, and if God is unknown, then how can we know for sure a God exists? This simply does not make sense to me. Kierkegaard also says that the existance of objectable knowledge means God exists. I think that he is implying that people can only have subjective knowledge. I disagree with this because people can obviously objectively prove facts. For example, we can prove that two plus two equals four.

In regard to the works of Russell, I agree with all of his arguments against God’s existance, except for his fourth argument. I do not agree with Russell’s critique of Kant’s argument for the remodying of injustice. Russell says that there is no logical necessity for an afterlife. Just because Russell does not believe there is a logical necessity for this other world where justice is served that does not mean he is right. He has no way to prove that one does not exist. It could be easily arguable that it is logical for justice to be balanced in another world, and thus afterlife exists. This does not mean that Kant is necessarily correct, but that Russell has no proof to back up his critique.

I do agree with his critique of Aquinas’ casual argument. To me, it seems that proofs are tools for solid arguments in philosophy. Russell has devised a proof that shows an invalid argument for the existance of God. This is a fairly strong proof it is not logical to believe in God. I also agree with his critique of Newton’s natural law argument. Science shows that natural laws are not necessarily laws and that some natural laws are the result of luck. There is a lot of probability and error in nature, so it is hard to conceive that a God created and controls all nature. Lastly, I agree with Russell’s critique on Aquinas’ argument from design. Again, Darwin’s work is convincing proof that God was not the ultimate designer and that there is not complete order and purpose in nature. Also, we do not live in the best of possible worlds. This is evident through all the problems and violence in the world. This also shows that it is not logical to believe in God.