If the teleological argument is correct in saying that God created humans like a machine, then you would expect humans to be perfect creations, but we are not. Humans are flawed in many ways including the fact that we have extra organs, and that our skeletons are not created properly for the way we walk. Humans are not machines in any way, and the fact that we are not perfect machines is explained by the theory of evolution. Therefore the theory of evolution is proof against the teleological argument and that God is the creator of the human race and the earth. I feel that this argument fails to prove the existence of God.
The basic premise of the Kálam argument is that something must of caused the universe to begin to exist, this cause must be necessary therefore it is God. The Kálam argument agrees with the term infinite regression, in which is a chain going infinitely back in time with no beginning. St. Thomas Aquinas was a believer of the cosmological argument, Aquinas set out ex nihilo nihil fit, basically meaning nothing comes from nothing, Aquinas believed since nothing can come from nothing, the universe exists so therefore God must of made it. Aquinas’ theory is equivalent to the second way, in which is ‘causation’. The second way states that cause and effect are natural, whatever happens is caused by something, and something cannot cause itself because that would mean
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.
Assess the claim that the universe provides no evidence for the existence of an omnipotent god’ 35 marks It is often claimed by philosophers that the universe provides no evidence for the existence of an omnipotent god due to the fact there are flaws in this argument. Firstly, the idea of god being omnipotent, simply means that god would be ‘all-powerful to do anything that is possibly logical to do’, which is an idea explored by Aquinas. This idea would solve problems created by Dawkins who suggested the idea that god being omnipotent is incoherent. Yet by suggesting that god is all powerful in things that is logical would mean that he would not do illogical such as change the past of change what humans believe is fact such as 2+2=4. Therefore both Aquinas and Dawkins would suggest that the God could in fact be an omnipotent being as it is still logical for him to be so.
Success of Aquinas’s Cosmological Argument Thomas Aquinas’s cosmological argument is a posteriori argument that Aquinas uses to prove the existence of God. Aquinas argues that, “Nothing can move itself, so whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this causal loop cannot go on to infinity, so if every object in motion had a mover, there must be a first mover which is the unmoved mover, called God.” (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3). I do agree with Aquinas’s cosmological argument in proving the existence of God with several reasons. According to the cosmological argument, first of all, Aquinas claims that, “it is impossible that a thing should be both mover and moved, namely it should not move itself.” (Aquinas, Question 2, Article 3) This part of the argument is obviously 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. These developers of old-earth theory were hardly objective, unbiased, let-the-facts-speak-for-themselves observers of the physical evidence, as is so often supposed.” (Mortenson, 2003) They had no religious opinion to relegate the belief of creation. Their opinion of the age of the earth was solely scientific based on tangible and seen evidence and tested theories. Today in history scripture geologists are being determined to have acknowledged correct timelines which were once debated by earlier non scriptural geologists. “It would be misleading to think that all these factors influenced all scientists to the same degree.
The universe is like the watch in the sense that it has complex features that work together perfectly; therefore the universe like the watch must have been designed. Teleologist’s like Paley would argue that the only one with such power to crate the universe is God. However this argument does not demonstrate empirical evidence to God’s existence, it only concludes that there is a designer, not that he designer is God. Therefore ‘God exists’ is not an empirical hypothesis as there is no known empirical method of proving God’s existence. Secondly ‘God exists’ is not an empirical hypothesis because the knowledge
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.
Infalsafiable it may be I do not find it persuasive due one singular point of contention. I cannot find tenable any argument that is contingent on the existence of God or any divine spirit. Berkeley’s answer to his own admission of the likelihood of the continued existence of ideas over time is contingent on the existence of God or some sort of Divine perceiver. Berkeley’s theory presents God that is at all times perceiving. If, for lack of better terminology, God were to “turn his head” all that is not being perceived would cease to exist.
They can be physical parts or concepts (similar to Plato’s idea of the forms). Two main issues come up during discussions of cosmology; how the universe was created and out of what the universe was created. In the Theogony, Hesiod has the world created out of gods that are human by nature and to create this universe the gods reproduced. Hesiod’s theories of the universe can clearly be classified as myth, since there is no scientific background for it. The philosophers to follow Hesiod moved slightly away from this.