Religion does not deal with any sort of rational analysis. On the other hand theology deals with the rational analysis of a religious faith. However there is no way we can separate the two. Theology is not science. Science is not theology.
Simply put, the fine-tuning argument contends that the universe was designed to ultimately create human beings. Fine-tuning is an argument which is able to contest one of the atheist’s own theories to disprove God. This will be explained in more detail later in this paper. In response to this, McCloskey says the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” As mentioned before, the cosmological argument is but one part of a concurrence for the existence of God. It does not prove God’s existence; it argues that there must be a necessary being which created the universe.
The teleological theory offers no scientific evidence, or evidence of any kind for the creation of the universe, it is based loosely on an analogy. The analogy opinion is too broad to be valid. I believe that things like volcanos and earthquakes that happen naturally are better explained by science. These things seem more probable in a universe that was created randomly by science, by the big bang, than if the universe was created specifically for a certain function by
Pseudoscience cannot be said as a science because their theories do not come from observation and lead nowhere to further scientific problems. In fact, sometimes pseudoscience “cannot be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable state of affairs in the empirical world”. Superstition is a kind of beliefs that come from a myth, folklore, legend, and religion, where all of these beliefs are false and made from ignorance. People make superstitions to conquer things that cannot be reached and controlled by science and any logical reasons such as ghosts, “God”, devils, etc. They make superstition because they “fear of the unknown”.
They only believe what they see. Their belief is not sustained by literature theory as from the Bible. “The scriptural geologists were not opposed to geological facts, but to the old-earth interpretations of those facts. And they argued that old-earth interpretations were based on anti-biblical philosophical assumptions, and in this they were correct. Buffon was a deist or secret atheist,12 as were Lamarck13 and Hutton.14 Laplace was an open atheist.15Werner,16 Cuvier,17 Smith18 and Lyell19 were probably deists or some sort of vague theists.
So, he will find that consolation in paradise, but it does not become more truthful from it. Science is not a religion, because it is not based on the scriptures, nor the revelation, but only on the facts. This is difference between science and
‘God exists’ is an empirical hypothesis (30 marks) This essay will be arguing that ‘God exists’ is not an empirical hypothesis. An empirical hypothesis is a hypothesis (a proposed explanation of something) which can be tested through empirical procedures (through observation and experimentation using science). This essay will be arguing the following points: That ‘God exists’ cannot be proven using science; that it is a matter of faith, not provable fact and that ‘God exist’ is not an empirical hypothesis as it is in fact a religious hypothesis. Firstly the idea that God exists cannot be proven using science. There are no tests or actual empirical evidence for God’s existence.
Rand says “Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears…” (qtd. The Ayn Rand Institute 1). Consciousness, therefore, is to distinguish reality, not to fashion or form it around a personal belief. Consequently, Objectivists reject all forms of a supernatural or any beliefs unfounded in fact. In the quote below Rand explains why she rejects religion outright, and she believes man himself deserves the attention: Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach.
They say that God does not exist in an objective and real sense; they do not think he is a real human entity existing in the world. For the Deist, God is the creator of the universe. God really exists but he does not and cannot intervene within the world. And lastly, for the Atheist, there is no God to bring about any kind of miracle. I myself am an Atheist, and therefore in my opinion believe miracles are impossible as all miracles are by, definition impossible if they claim to be the action of a deity.
They do not believe that species change into totally different and separate animals through evolution, as sacred books mention about existence of God and they contains strict rules. Moreover, creationists say that natural selection can develop smaller changes within species however, cannot produce new species from pre-existing