The Strength of the Teological Argument due to Science

However, David Hume, succeeds in objecting this argument by claiming that the experience is a necessary factor for understanding the creation of the universe. Lastly, I argued that Paley’s argument was not sufficient for proving God’s existence with the argument by design because we cannot assume the world will comply and work the way we wish

In “God, Design, and Fine-Tuning”, Robin Collins argues for the Intelligent Design of the universe from the Fine-Tuning Argument. Collins’ argument is probabilistic in nature; however, it fails due to its misuse of probability theory. Aided by the work of both Bradley Monton and Mark Colyvan, I will show why Collins’ argument fails. It can be shown that this line of reasoning concludes that the existence of a life permitting universe is zero. Essentially, Collins’ argument does not prove what he claims it does and is too strong to account for the existence of a life permitting universe because it not only misuses probability, but is rendered useless due to the paradoxes inherent in probability theory.

Humans can never know for the certain why the universe was created or what caused it but, we can still create arguments and theories to best explain what might have created the universe. The cosmological argument is another idea to prove the existence of god. Many philosophers debate wheatear the cosmological argument is valid. The cosmological argument starts off quite simply: whatever exists must come from something else. Nothing is the source of its own existences, nothing is self-creating [].

Science is limited in its scope therefor there are questions it cannot answer. The origin of its own laws is one of these questions as is the existence of God. II 1. If science demonstrates that belief in God's existence is unreasonable, then science can explain the origin of the fundamental laws of the universe. 2.

It could be argued that the first cause was physical, material rather than God and as a human has a mother, doesn’t mean the Universe does. This argument could convince a believer of God but it would not convince a non- believer because it cannot stand alone as a proof for the existence of God. It would have to be supported by other evidence, and scientific explanations like the Big Bang Theory offer reasons for how the universe began. Another argument is the design argument. It argued that the world around us can be used as evidence to prove the existence of God - through the natural order that occurs in our lives, bodies and minds.

The paradox of the stone is an argument that is simple but implies big meaning, it states that if god is omnipotence, all-powerful, as described then he can create a stone that even he can’t lift. This very simple statement has been a major argument in favor of atheism, if you agree with the paradox then that means you think god is not all-powerful because he can’t lift a stone. Others like Christians disagree that this goes wrong in few different ways, some think the problem is with the word omnipotence and what that entails, others argue that the use of the word can’t with god is impossible because he is almighty and can do anything, and a few suggest that comparing god to people is where the argument goes wrong. The argument dates back about

Believing that god is the one who makes us have ideas, without concrete proof would be reckless. This is why I believe that if god`s existence cannot be proven there shouldn’t be any arguments stating that this spirit is the one who controls everything. Lastly, since it`s impossible to prove god`s existence, Berkeley`s response fails to skepticism even if he`s completely right when he says that everything is an idea.

The proof talks about goodness, truth, and nobility, which on there own are not proofs that God exists; they are morals. It forms a type of standard for morality, or for individuals to be aware of it, should they ever want to speak meaningfully about weather or not things or beings are good, bad, truthful, noble, or not. Modern science can explain many things. However, one of the things is yet to prove and will most likely never prove, is: why was everything was created? This is where God steps in.

The Inadequacy of the Argument from Design William Paley’s teleological argument (also known as the argument from design) is an attempt to prove the existence of god. This argument succeeds in proving that while existence was created by an aggregation of forces, to define these forces, as a conscious, rational, and ultimately godlike is dubious. Although the conclusions are valid, the argument makes several logical errors. The teleological argument relies on inductive reasoning, rendering the argument itself valid, but unsound. The argument fails to apply its own line of reasoning to itself, resulting in infinite regression.

This view is completely contrary to the belief in the existence of God's natural creation . The biggest mistake of those who believe that the theory of evolution does not contradict the fact of creation is the notion that the theory of evolution is simply the assertion that living things came into being through a process of evolution from one form to another . Therefore , they say : " Is not nothing wrong if God created all living things through evolution from one form to another form ; what's wrong with rejecting it ? " However , there is actually very basic things that have been overlooked : the f... ... middle of paper ... ...e Units of Evolution : Essays on the Nature og Species . A Bradford Book The MIT Press .