Final answer:
The 'argument from unconstrained possibilities' is not a standard argument but refers to challenges against the Cosmological Argument and Argument from Contingency, which are philosophical arguments for the existence of God. Critics highlight the problem of infinite regress and the presence of gratuitous evil, which counterclaims the omnipotence and omnibenevolence of a deity. Additionally, these arguments do not meet the burden of proof required to assert the existence of God.
Step-by-step explanation:
Argument from Unconstrained Possibilities Against God
The concept of an argument from unconstrained possibilities against God does not seem to be a standard philosophical argument.
However, criticisms of arguments for God's existence, like the Cosmological Argument or Argument from Contingency, involve the assessment of possibilities and the constraints of logical reasoning.
In the cosmological framework, arguments for God's existence suggest that because everything has a cause, there must be a first cause, which is God.
Critics argue that if everything must have a cause, then God must also have a cause, leading to the question of what caused God.
If God can be seen as uncaused or a necessary being, they argue, why not consider the universe itself as eternal and uncaused?
Furthermore, arguments citing the existence of evil challenge the belief in an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. The possibility of 'gratuitous evil'—an evil that leads to no good outcome—questions the notion that God is using evil for a greater good.
Such scenarios weaken the argument that the existence of evil is compatible with an all-good deity. Lastly, the burden of proof lies on the one making the positive claim—here, the existence of God.
The cosmological and contingency arguments, while asserting a logical possibility, do not reach a level of convincement to meet this standard of proof.