Biblical Creation” he takes a different view as the previous authors, and sides with creationism. He does this in a scientific way, presenting evidence for creation instead of only refuting evolution without firm evidence creation. While making a case for creation, he also emphasized on the prebiotic soup theory, pointing out major faults at the very base of the argument. Rana made solid arguments for creation and against evolution, but also held a balanced view over both by considering evolution as a real possibility, of course, siding with creation when the evidence was studied. Siding for creation, Rana obviously believes that biochemistry could only be present from a creator, namely
What does science say about the effects of performance enhancing drugs? What are the ramifications of taking them? Atheists would consider the same questions as Christians but base their decision-making process on a completely different set of criteria. Their conclusions would consider health alone with no spiritual consideration. Likewise, atheists would also consider the implications of the legality of using these drugs.
with the most logical study of these inductive methods.The question whether inductive inferences are justified, or under what conditions, is known as the problem of induction.The problem of induction may also be organized as the question of the validity or the truth of universal statements which are based on experience, such as the suggestions and intellectual systems of the pragmatic sciences. In the eyes of the people of inductive logic, a principle of induction is of vast significance for scientific ways " this principle " says Reichenbach, " determines the truth of scientific theories. To remove it from science would mean absolutely nothing lower than to deny science of the will to decide the truth or falsity of its theories " . At this moment you can see this notion of induction can not in any case be a simply validation or logical truth like some sort of repetition or a critical statement . Reichenbach says that this principle of induction is extremely important for scientific ways it defines the real science theories
Science started looking for more substantial proof and information, while theology still relied on what could not be seen. Francis Bacon is the father of the scientific method and his way of thinking became wide spread amongst scientists everywhere. He believed that knowledge was discovered by gathering and analyzing data from the use of experiments and observations, rather than the popular ‘logical-based arguments’. Bacon also believed that it was time to move away from old/ancient philosophies and move more towards new methods and laws of nature. Another big thing Bacon did was pretty much override Aristotle’s way of thinking, deduction, and moved towards induction.
The Agents of Good and Evil There is this belief that the Christian God is good and all-powerful. He has the power to create worlds and beings, yet there is still evil in the world. Both Pierre Bayle and Voltaire address these questions in their works “Paulicians” and Candide (respectively). They both believe the Manichean philosophy as a more rational thought process than the contemporaneous Christian view. This belief is that there is not one, but two gods in the world; a god of good and a god of evil.
For example, Feste says to Olivia, “I wear not motley in my brain.” (i.v.54-55). So although he may dress like a fool he does not have the intelligence of a fool and therefore should not be seen as someone who is dull. Feste is cautioning against making connections between what can be seen and what cannot, the actions and appearance of Feste do not shed light on his sanity as they are mutually exclusive. He later addresses this point again when interrogating Malvolio, “Nay, I’ll ne’er believe a madman till I see his brains.” (iv.ii.122-123). The impossibility of this request not only drives the point that Feste is incapable of determining sanity because he cannot ever see Malvolio’s brain, but that there is inherent danger in letting him analyze Malvolio’s sanity.
But I believe religion is different from other disciplines and should not be compared in terms of providing the same amount of evidence. Maybe there is some sort of incommunicable truth that comes from insight and public evidence will never be able to justify it. But religious and nonreligious evidence has to be different. For example, if science can not agree on some sort of theory there will most likely be a point in which enough public evidence will be gathered so that it would be obvious that this particular theory is true. One example might be the theory that the earth is round.
One of Freud’s primary arguments to disprove the existence of God was based on the premise that religious beliefs were formed from wishful thinking and that God is simply a representation of parental authority. In this case, Freud believes that since children think of their parents as superheroes, they create God as an image of their parents.6 While this analysis does seem relatively reasonable, God is actually even more understanding and compassionate than parents are and he longs to be with us. Therefore, God simply cannot be just a representation of parents. Believing in God is also not wishful thinking because as Lewis points out, living a religious life involves a great deal of despair. When someone believes in God, they learn there is always room for improvement within themselves, which for most people can be hard to accept.
Science has changed its stance on ideas because mistakes are possible; history has been twisted to suit personal views; and traditions and experiences are not reliable sources for accurate information. The only final truth is God’s word expressed in the Bible and through personal revelation. God’s word is all truth. The Bible’s truths can be tested and verified through historical documentation. Christian beliefs are based on the inspired word of God through the Bible and through God’s revelation to his believers.
He implicitly rejects the conception of science that limits it to the study of impersonal, unguided, and purposeless forces” (R. Koons, n.d.). Kant does not see the design argument as an adversary or as hindering scientific progress, he sees the argument as a beginning and a guide to the scientific