Catholic people think that if you believe in God miracles seem more obvious to you and if you deny and test the existence of God then it will be harder to see the miracles happen. If God really is behind all of the natural laws, he is not restricted by them therefore He is allowed to violate them from time to time. This also contradicts the fact that God is omnibenevolant and defeats the saying that ‘all humans are equal’. There are a lot of problems with using miracles to prove Gods existence, some say that one person’s miracle is not one to another person, we have some sort of scientific explanations to miracles that happened in the bible, so in the future we could have explanations to miracles that
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. There are four different definitions of miracles, A ‘radical change for the better’ in a person, an ordinary event which has Religious significance for the believer, A remarkable or unusual event which has been directly caused by God but does not go against or break the laws of nature and The ‘laws of nature’ are being broken by God, which is the definition David Hume (18th Century) uses. This more traditional understanding of a miracle is the understanding of classical Theism, namely that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and therefore he does intervene on occasion to perform miracles. As an atheist, David Hume refutes miracles, he does not believe that they can happen, although he has one of the most famous definitions of the traditional understanding of a miracle. Hume
McCloskey contended against the three mystical verifications, which are the cosmological argument, the argument from design and the teleological argument. He called attention to the presence of evil on the planet that God made. He likewise called attention to that it is irrational to live by trust or faith. As indicated by McCloskey, confirmations do not essentially assume a fundamental part in the conviction of God. Page 62 of the article expresses that "most theists do not come to have faith in God as a premise for religious conviction, however come to religion as a consequence of different reasons and variables."
According to the scientific method in order to test a hypothesis one must make sure the claim is falsifiable. Although there is evidence that the planets move almost like clockwork, however that is not enough to prove astrology specifically. However studies and tests have been conducted in the past in order to verfiy its claims. Similar to the practise of witchcraft, the failure of producing the desired result is almost always blamed on the psychic or astrologers inability and not the fault of astrology itself.5 The difficulty to test this is due to its subjectivity. This makes it unscientific; the result of every experiment must either be true or
Also that if events such as, seas getting dried up were to happen everyday they wouldn’t be a miracle. Wiles has also said that believing in miracles could be wrong, as if they were done by God then he could have stopped major tragedies, e.g. Auschwitz and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In these examples it limits God and he is seen as not being omnibenevolent. However, in the New Testament God heals and individual who is blind and lets others die.
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
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.
Before talking about the incompatibility of science and religion, it is necessary to answer questions such as what is science and what is religion? The science is a tool by means of which it is possible to receive true knowledge of the world. How there was a Universe or how life has appeared? Very deep and difficult question. While none of these issues have precise answers, but there is a scientific methodology, which is the best of what people can approach to them.
There are more than seven billion people on our planet and each individual has a different belief, but why is it that faith as an individual is such a controversial topic? Why can’t faith be used as a basis of knowledge? The answer is more difficult then it may seem, some people believe that faith cannot be used as the basis to get knowledge simply because there is no sustantial evidence of explaining it, because it cannot be shown, therefore a fallible source. For that reason, people choose the more scientific approach because it provides evidence. This undoubtly is the quitessential what the Natural Sciences is based upon.
What he calls necessities, are not really a necessity for the right reasons. Krauthammer depicts a sentimental environmentalist as someone who indulges in worshiping earth to the point of idolatry. This may be the only argument that I agree with. Some environmentalists have taken a different and extreme approach on how they view and treat our earth. While I don’t agree with worshiping earth, I disagree that Krauthammar completely disregards earth due to the fact that there are natural disasters; his statements are simply not realistic.