In this paper I will explain and evaluate two popular arguments regarding the existence of God, A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God by Robin Collins and The Inductive Argument from Evil Against the Existence of God by William Rowe; then I will discuss how the conclusions are not compatible with one another due to the conflicting structure of the conclusions as well as how one cannot accept both conclusions without compromising one of the arguments. First I will explain the basis of Collins’ argument, which is one of the most frequently used arguments in favor of theism. In A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God, Collins centers around the observation of how finely tuned the physical constants of the universe are to the ability for any form of life to exist, if any of them were to change even the smallest bit then no life would possibly be able to develop not to…
In modern times religion and science are increasingly becoming viewed as incompatible, or at least non-overlapping. Damien Keown states that “Scientific discoveries, and theories such as evolution, have challenged many traditional Christian teachings…” at the expense of making them appear “...dogmatic, irrational, and backward-looking” (119). Despite its brief history in the West, Buddhism has gained increasing popularity in part due to its frequent portrayal as an exception to the conflict between scientific and spiritual thought. Proponents of this view—deemed “Buddhist Modernists” or “Secular Buddhists”—argue that Buddhism possesses certain qualities which make it compatible with a secular view of the world, while providing a source of purpose…
In the book Is God a Moral Monster author and apologist Paul Copan sets out to offer a response to the argument New Age Atheists make that God lacks humility and was a moral monster in terms of New Testament ethics. Copan shows the reader throughout the book how God is not a prideful God, and that he is humble, self-giving, other-centered Being. Paul Copan takes on the views of some of the most prominent New Age Atheists, in particular Richard Dawkins. Dawkins claims that God is obsessed with his own superiority over rival Gods. He claims that the God of the Bible craves praise, seeks attention and worship, and that all Gods main objective is, is to make a name for himself because he is prideful.…
While providing fair evidence on both sides, I will expand on my own belief that Dawkin’s argument is most plausible due to the logical reasoning he brings forth. Beginning this altercation is Polkinghorne’s ontological argument…
Scientists have discovered theories such as evolution and natural selection that are backed up by solid proof instead of observations alone. As a result, if we were to argue that nature is too flawless in its construction, these theories seem more plausible than the belief of an invisible designer. Largely because they have gone through extensive research, unlike God who can’t really be proven. Some may then debate that the provided evidence for the existence of God is only at the disposal of those who understand it.…
McCloskey’s article, “On being an atheist” presented ideals and points that were thought provoking. It can be seen from the beginning of the article, McCloskey is a proud, and seemingly closed minded atheist. This type of attitude when debating such a heavily weighted topic becomes difficult to engage and even persuade. Throughout his article, McCloskey discusses four areas that surround atheism. The four areas are: Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument, Problem of Evil, and Atheism as Comforting.…
The earth as an organism has been a popular topic over the last hundreds of years throughout science. However, James Lovelock’s approach of the earth was, and still is, an extremely controversial concept among scholars. He describes his theory as, “A complex entity involving the Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet” (148). In other words, the surface organisms of earth, or biosphere regulate the atmosphere at an optimal level to maintain life. James Lovelock was criticized by many well-respected scientists, and at no point (until early 2000s) did any of Lovelock’s arguments get corrected; they were blatantly rejected.…
Richard Dawkins is trying to argue that reality can be proven by scientific evidence and magic is used when we do not know why something happen the way they do. We classify something as real when proven by our five senses. However, “we are able to develop new technology and extend the reach of our senses. For example, a microscope to prove that bacteria does exist”. Although, we cannot see microbes with our naked eyes we can use an instrument to see it.…
I would say to throw God out of the equation when considering the origins of the universe is quite ignorant, especially when examining all the evidence. However, that being said, science is quite limited; it can only examine what is physical and what can be observed naturally, it can not factor the supernatural into the equation; but this is not a reason to say that the supernatural can not exist. Just because something is outside our comprehension does not mean it can not be; an analogy ill use is this, if you were to go back in time to 1673 as an example, and put a radio in front of Isaac Newton and said “this machine right here can catch soundwaves” I think I can safely say that Isaac Newton would not be able to begin to imagine how that would be possible or even comprehend that; but does that mean it is not possible? No, because we know it is not, but it would have been outside his comprehension because he could not yet understand it. Is this not how it could be with God to us, we simply can not comprehend him because our minds simply don’t have the capacity.…
The article published by Jerry Coyne, titled, Science and Religion Aren’t Friends, is one that demands that science and religion are incompatible, and he makes an attempt to destroy any possibility of compatibility between the two. He claims that religion is merely a fog of superstition that needs to get out of the way of scientific progress. “ And any progress- not just scientific progress- is easier when we’re not yoked to religious dogma.” Coyne argues for the value of science, a value that doesn’t have various religions arguing with one another about which one is right, there is simply one scientific truth. “In contrast, scientists don’t kill each other over matters such as continental drift.…
In fact he goes as far to say that science is one of the most pure doctrine since it can only tell the truth and nothing else. Dawkins also points out that society needs to be care and not mental abuse children by only feeding them religion and not…
For one, Dawkins doesn’t rely on blind faith but rather what has been proven. He expressed how there was no God driving the evolution of all living things as proven by Darwin. Dawkins brought forward a form of comparison where he compared Evolution to a swerving driver. He said that if a car was werving you would think that an agent was controlling the car and in that case Lennox would be…
Therefore, Dawkins needs more factual theories, rather than sentimental theories. The word sentimental was chosen because he does not have a plausible foundation for his theories. They are more like sophisticated opinions formulated by an irritated person. In this case, Dawkins seems very irritated with…
Yes, I agree with Mr. Dawkins with the idea that where are taking things to seriously. In todays society people are profiting off others by giving them false hope. This false hope includes religion, physics, fortune tellers. All these people are doing is using basic cold reading for the fortune tellers and physics they use this skill to continue sly guess your personal secrets and use that to strengthen there lie and make the audience truly believe in their so-called connection with the spirit world. I fond it hilarious when these physics and fortune tellers got it wrong and had to call on another person so that they can still look like they are not just guessing.…
Atheistic naturalism must answer many question, but their answers are not further coming, dubious at best, or based on faulty reasoning. Questions such as to why is there something rather than nothing. The laws of logic. The beauty of mathematical principles, and there applications to the world around us. The necessary fine tuning of biological information.…