The following arguments are from modern day philosophers who have made controversial statements in defense of their positions on some of the most celebrated philosophers in history. However, these modern day philosophers have made it a point to support their arguments and stay true in what they believe in philosophical terms. A lot of their arguments are actually simple in nature and they can make sense if given a chance. There is a shock value to some of the arguments, so instead of giving the argument a chance, it is just a matter of not being able to make sense out of the theories presented. Overall, these arguments discussed, while simple, does take a level of critical thinking to truly appreciate what is being said. Landesman’s argument for Color Skepticism

Landesman’s argument about color skepticism is a compelling one. He believes that color does not exist. This existence was true for everything that has color. While the argument may seem to be alarming to most, he did provide sufficient reasoning for his argument. To give merit to this argument, it is known that color is a reflection of light. Landesman brought about an abstract discussion on how he did not believe color exists and used empirical data to prove his point. Color skepticism is the notion that color does not exist. Landesman dismissed his philosophical colleagues that it does exist and this has remained one of the most controversial assumptions in recent times.
Van Inwagen’s argument that Free Will Is a Mystery
Van Inwagen’s argument that free will is a mystery is one that has been analyzed throughout time. He uses the argument of compatibilism and makes the assumption that free will is comparable with determinism. Free will constitutes that humans have a choice in their decisions while determinism provides a pre-determined existence. He ultimately believes that indeterminism is true. With the argument of free will and determinism comes the other factors of moral responsibility and human accountability. Yet, Van Inwagen believes that humans are not responsible for what happened in the past and cannot be responsible for future phenomena. Therefore, free will is a better way to look at living.
Moreland’s Defense of Dualism
Moreland become controversial in his philosophy when he defended dualism. To be exact, he is a proponent of Cartesian dualism. He believes this kind of dualism provides substance to human beings. Furthermore Moreland made it a point to argue that humans have immaterial substance and physical substance. The immaterial substance is a matter of mind and soul. Moreland’s strongest point in his argument is the concept of dualism in other elements including theories. He argues that if people can believe in dualism for other elements, then why is it so hard to believe that humans are dual.
Polkinghorne’s argument for Theism
The opposite of atheism is theism. Polkinghorne has some interesting views on the existence of God. While some believe he has a sound argument, atheist disagree. Even though, Polkinghorne is a priest, he too has asked the same questions about an existence of God. He surmises that for those who do not believe in the existence of God, then the idea of a god is the greatest culmination of imagination among humans. He believes the existence of God answers some of the most basic questions that other philosophers have asked. He believes that other philosophers try to complicate the notion of God. Polkinhorne’s greatest strength is the simplicity of his argument and support for theism. Given the makeup of the world and the questions from mankind, the concept of God makes sense.