AboutCharles K. MacKay Expertise I can answer a number of questions in philosophy; my academic concentrations (graduate school at Cornell) are ethics, political philosophy, and 19th-century German philosophy (Marx, Hegel, and hangers-on.)
Experience EDUCATION:
BA, New College, 1971, Philosophy and Religion
Awarded four graduate fellowships upon graduation
MA, Cornell University, 1974
Social and Political Philosophy, Danforth Fellowship
All course work and dissertation drafts completed for Ph.D. Cornell University, 1971-1975, Social and Political Philosophy, Danforth Fellowship
Courses in statistics and microeconomics, George Washington University and The American University, 1976-1978
EXPERIENCE:
Health Insurance Specialist 2005 - Present
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service
US Department of Health and Human Services
Allentown Business School Instructor (Computer Science) 2003 - 2005
Northampton Community College
Adjunct Professor of Philosophy 2003 -2005
Lehigh County Community College
Adjunct Professor of Philosophy and Computer Science
PUBLICATIONS:
Medicare Made Easy (with Charles B. Inlander) Addison-Wesley, 1989
Good Operations, Bad Operations (with Charles B. Inlander) Viking Press, 1993
Health Rebooted: Information Changes Everything (in press), 2008
Question Can you logically argue against the existence of God? I need to do so for a class so, of course, I have studied the Arguments from Evil, Freewill argument but those don't realy disprove God's existence nor does the Argument of nonbelief. I have come to the conclusion with some certainity that it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist. I can not prove Leprechauns exist either but I'm pretty sure they don't, either!
Answer The only effective way to argue against the existence of anything on purely logical grounds is the good ol' "reductio ad absurdum" -- reeduction to an absurdity. Specify as the premise that God exists, and then show that a contradiction can be derived from it.
The best target for this would be the Norman Malcolm variation of the ontological argument, the only argument that most philosophers think has a ghost of a whisper of a change of actually working. See:
To do this, one would take the argument's conclusion, which is that anything that has the property of necessary existence exists, and show that it led to a contradiction with some other defensible principal or conclusion. On this one, good luck!
