Dawkins replied to Lennox on his accusation that the principles of going from simple to complex is the belief of the atheist. By saying that if things were to go from simple to complex they would need explaining why. Lennox says that it makes a lot more sense to believe, that there is an eternal Logos and that the universe and its laws is derivative including the human mind form the Logos, it makes perfectly sense. More sense than to accept that the universe is just a simple fact. Dawkins replies that it makes a hell of a lot more sense to start with something simpler than to start with something more complex.
In response to the parent analogy, Hume concedes that the Problem of Evil argument does not wholly disprove the existence of God. Though, he does point out that the parent analogy assumes that God exists, which means we require further reasons to believe that he does in order to accept this particular theodicy. He concludes that most "objections seem to be mere fault-finding and trickery; and then we can 't imagine how we could ever give weight to them" (pg. 9). Overall, he decides that the Problem of Evil argument shows it is more logical to believe that God does
Principally, I believe the first step towards understanding Pascal 's wager is to understand who or what Pascal is arguing against. Pascal states that God is incomprehensible, in fact, "infinitely incomprehensible." Reason cannot decide the matter. He tries to persuade the atheists that wagering on the existence of God is irrational and to imagine the possibility of a finite mind comprehending the infinite. We might then be persuaded by his argument.
Unlike many of the other authors examined thus far, Gert is much subtler in his argumentative approach by utilizing carful phraseology and ambiguity rather than decisive declarations. In the introduction of his article, Gert acknowledges that he is not an expert in genetics, but simply a philosopher setting out to resolve the controversy surrounding alteration of the human genome. After thoroughly describing his definition of morality, Gert claims, “The moral force of the objection [towards] genetic engineering… is that we do not know that there are no risks. A proper humility, that is, recognition that human knowledge is limited and that all human beings are fallible, is required for reliable moral behavior” (Gert 47). Aside from the authority that results from being published in a peer-reviewed journal, Gert writes in a rather serious and academic tone to prevent the reader from taking his words too lightly.
Through Soccio 's “Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy”, one can see that Hume rejects Descartes’s ontological proofs, Newton’s teleological proof, and Paine’s cosmological proof of God’s existence. In his book “Discourse on Method,” Descartes gives two ontological proofs of God’s existence. The first proof appears earlier in his book when he doubts himself about not being perfect. Descartes is aware that since he has doubts, he is not perfect, because a perfect being would know everything. However, since he has the notion of what perfection is, it means that there must be a perfect being that exists out there that give him the idea of perfection.
Following, Philo states that he will approve of all the arguments Cleanthes has presented thus far, because at the end of it all, Cleanthes cannot compile a working argument. This is simply, because Philo claims that if a “Deity” has unlimited power, as has been approved, then the “Deity” will not accept any malevolent acts in the world. Thus, having malevolent acts in the world, means that the “Deity can be kind and ultimately powerful, for these inconsistencies are the way man thinks. Philo identifies these key points which is part of his initial point that was made, what was rejected by Cleanthes, however Cleanthes is now forced to accept this, if he wants to maintain the argument that a “Deity” is endless.
Part IX of Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, presents an a priori rendition of the cosmological argument through Demea: a conservative theist who sparks discourse with his claims. The majority of this discourse consists of Cleanthes (another fictional character) presenting several objections to Demea’s argument. Cleanthes begins his array of objections by striking the core of Demea’s argument, this being that it is based upon a priori knowledge. Cleanthes argues that it is absurd to believe that a priori arguments are capable of demonstrating a matter of fact,( as they only concern abstract thought and ideas.) Cleanthes’s argues that for something to be demonstrable, it’s opposite must be impossible due to a contradiction.
Galileo believes in the Bible and that God has supreme authority over the world, but he sees religion and science as two different things. It is not the purpose of the Bible to explain the physical world, it is there to save our souls. He makes three distinguishes: The Bible and Church have all matters of faith., if any scientific finding if proven to be true but is against the teachings of the Bible, then we have not found the true meaning of the Bible, and anything not proven that is against the Bible must be
David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion Part XI tried to explain why there is so much evil in the world we live in if we have and all powerful God that can stop all evil if He wanted to. So Hume begs the question well, if God cannot stop evil since evil in inevitable to happen, then God is not all-powerful. From this question, since God is all-powerful and does not stop evil from happening, then we have a malevolent God who is evil. But, what if God does not know when evil is going to happen? This means that God would not be all knowing and not omniscient.
Scientist recognize the notion of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions unless people impose some wholly arbitrary rules to prevent this (Schwartz 1998, 41). However, Richard Dawkins think it reflects human cannot explain ‘the statistical improbability’ because the creator theory cannot explain who created god himself (Dawkins 2009,
This is because it is often mistakenly classified as an intelligent design argument, arguments which are easily defeated by Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. An intelligent design argument being an argument in the vain of William Paley’s teleological (watch maker argument) which argues that the universe is the product of an intelligent designer based on the complexities of the human form which he believed could have only been created by an “intelligent design”. However, the Fifth way of Thomas Aquinas is not an argument for intelligent design. His argument is, in fact, an argument for causality of the universe. This type of argument is one which argues that the universe acts towards an end and since it acts towards an end there must be a supreme being which set it towards that end.
This false information can be difficult to discard because it can be used to explain so much about the natural world and our purpose in it. It is important that we accept that religion is Man’s attempt to answer these questions and because it is an institution reliant upon faith, it is acceptable for one to accept Religion as a precursor for complex ideas, and interpret its fallacies as misunderstandings, however, it is unreasonable for one to justify the rejection of science to prevent controversy with the beliefs of religion. Furthermore, it is unreasonable for one to ever justify the rejection of science for any reason, as this praxis clouds the mind and decreases one’s capacity to comprehend the true nature of the universe and the governing laws to which it
The basic principles of metaphysical naturalism are very different than that of naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism has a more meaningful religious interpretation in that human beings may not be able to entirely comprehend the ultimate purpose of the universe and its parts. This brings us to the scientific thought that the laws of physics and chemistry are of hierarchical organizational patterns and exceed the limits of religious concepts and theory. Scientific naturalist sees science as the only sensible way of understanding nature. In this regard if there is something more than naturalism in this world, science alone may be considered an inaccurate means of recognizing and comprehending these concepts.
I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist. At the beginning of the article, Mackie states that the initial issue with God’s existence is that, “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, Paragraph 3). If god is such a pure and good being, then he should be able to combat all evil. The first statement that showcases that God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, then evil cannot possibly exist.
One of the many famous arguments proving God’s existence by a seventeenth-century famed philosopher Anselm. Anselm’s reasoning was that, if a being existed only in the mind but not in reality, then a greater being was conceivable (a being which exists both in the mind and in reality). Since God is an infinitely great being, therefore, God must exist. Anselm logically proved that God existed by our understanding aside from reality and our understanding combined with reality. Another argument is the cosmological arguments.