To say right off the bat that you believed in God because of this analogy would not make much sense. If you tried to convince somebody that God was real you’re going to have to dive deeper into the conversation than this watch analogy. One of the reasons that lead me to believing in God is how complex we are. To think that we as humans came about as a result of chance does not make sense one bit. That being said, I’ve always believed in a designer, but it wasn’t always that I believed that God was the designer.
The first main point argued by Dawkins is that the size and the complexity of the universe tempt us to think that there was a creator, a God. Science however, managed to emancipate us from explaining everything around us using the word God. Science works on answering question based on evidence. Religion uses faith to ignore the question and pushes it to God. He further argues that the only time faith comes into play is when there is no evidence.
As a counter argument it is faulty, and ultimately fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the traditional God exists and has an adequate reason for evil. In a court of law, the burden of proof falls onto the prosecution to prove their claim beyond a reasonable doubt while the defense counters their position by establishing some doubt. The prosecution can be seen as Craig as he claims the existence of a God, whereas Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheism only exists in relation to theism. Atheism is a response to theism but theism is an idea in itself, independent of atheism. In other words, without theism atheism would not exist, as such without a claim made by the Crown the defense is not needed.
Russell first explains what a Christian is. In addition, he explains that a Christian looks nothing like what it once did two thousand years ago. In order to be a “full-blooded Christian” Russell explains in order to be a Christian you must believe in God and immortality and the most divine and intelligent being is our creator. Christians have faith in God in the form of “unaided reason” not logic or reason (Russell, pg.4-5). The first argument presented by Russell is the divinity and first cause of God is in question if something could come before God and we could have adapted to our environment rather than be a creature from design.
‘Will I survive?’ , ‘Am I the same person?’ , ‘Will there be some person alive who is the same person as me?’ (Parfit, 1971, p.9) these are all questions that must be answered in order to determine ones survival or future responsible actions. Parfit, however, argues that these beliefs are false or mistaken as such.
Through science, it is clear that we have been born with many things that are not essential for our survival. For example, male nipples, our appendix and hair serve no specific purpose to us. Therefore, if god is perfect by definitions, why is the world full of imperfect design? If god was so amazing, he would not have made these superfluous, unnecessary things that we do not need; however he would also not have made these by mistake. Overall, this criticism is proving that a perfect being (God) would not make mistakes so he either is imperfect or does not exist at
In John Locke’s, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke develops an argument for the existence of God. In the the following paper, I shall first reconstruct Lockes’ argument for his claim of God’s existence. I shall then identify what I take to be the weakest premise of the argument and explain why I find it in need of justification. The following is a reconstruction of Lockes’ argument: 1) Man has a clear perception of his own being 2)
When using eugenics, it is somewhat clear that something against nature is happening. Eugenics is an unnatural process, whereas the gene given through parents’ heritage is natural. Eugenics is a scientific process of altering genes for “better” qualities. It is known that typically science and religion do not coincide with one another. Eugenics causes a big stir about whether it is playing the role of God.
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.
The superdominace argument from Pascal 's wager essentially states that we cannot be sure whether God exists, so we have to wager on a side because reason cannot help in our decision on God 's existence, but he supports believing in God. While the argument from expectation states "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing" (Pascal 53). Pascal essentially says that when faced with God 's existence believing that he exists gives you two outcomes these are "you gain all" and "you lose nothing"(Pascal 53). Much less not believing in God can have the outcome of misery or simply status quo. To put it briefly, Pascal suggests one should wager on whether God exists on their own accord.
From this it is then reasonable to conclude that this causality was set in motion by a supreme being which is God. This argument answers the question of whether or not there is a God far better than the intelligent design arguments of William Paley. For, Paley’s argument easily invalidated by modern science because it argues that simply because there are complex features that can’t be explained by nature and that there are further complex forms in the universe then there must be a God who created the
Since God lives outside of time, it could be instantaneous. How exactly the universe was physically created is not important to us, but that God created it is what is important. How God made life could have been through evolution or something entirely different. Every idea of how we were created can easily fit into the Bible 's aspect of creation because it is very vague and does not go into direct detail on how exactly God created everything. It is not important how we were physically created but that God created