Most scientists argue that "God" is not a scientifically proven cause, whereas Aristotle would argue that God is ‘a remote and unchanging being who allows his world to be changeable so that it can gradually move towards the perfection which he already enjoys.’ A further fault with this would be the principle that the universe can’t explain its own existence, Why is it here at all? Why is it like this? Why isn’t it different? Why something rather than nothing?. Critics such as Dawkins and Russell say the universe is here today due to ‘brute fact’ whereas Swinburne would argue highly with that and say ‘God is simpler than anything we could imagine and gives an explanation for the system’.
Examine why some sociologists choose not to use experiments when conducting research? (20 marks) Many sociologists choose not to use laboratory experiments for research because it fails to achieve their main goal of validity. To have complete control of conditions in a lab experiment is impossible as that level of control over variables would require a completely artificial environment which will be very expensive. However in contrast other sociologists such as Positivists disagree and are in favour of laboratory experiments. Other alternatives to laboratory experiments are field experiment and the comparative method.
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
In ‘If Free Will Doesn’t Exist, Neither Does Water’, Vargas asserts that most people nowadays connect science and free will and use it to prove that free will does not actually exist. I personally believe that these claims are too hasty as the issue requires substantive commitments about disputed philosophical ideas. Aside from that, he also mentions that science has a different way to explain the detail of history of the things that we know without abandoning anything else. In section 1, I will explain the connection between science and our actions. In section 2, I will discuss why if our actions are casually determined, then we don’t have free will.
Weakness - the factors given by researchers, such as the ones stated, are only assumptions with no scientific evidence. Weakness - the research over exaggerates how bad memory is. This could be due to the fact that it is being studied in lab conditions and only the short term effects of memory and eye witness testimony are being taken into
One of the reasons is because they authors that write the papers are not interested in the subject that they are writing about. Another reason that Wikipedia should not be used for academic research papers is because many of the articles are one sided and biased so there is only one side to the article, this leads to miscommunicated information. The reason that information is so misjudged today is because there are many articles that are on sources such as Wikipedia. Knowing which sources are credible helps to understand the research that the people do. By looking through the periodicals and situations, they are able to understand the information that is being presented to the argument.
Stacey Snyder Professor McMichael Introduction to Philosophy April 08, 2014 Paley’s Teleological Argument In this paper, I will be discussing Paley’s teleological argument for the existence of God. This is a valid argument but in my opinion it is not enough to prove the existence of God. I believe that even if all the premises are true and they relate to the conclusion, which they do, that the argument can still be proven wrong by other theories. Paley’s teleological arguments, also called the design argument, attempts to prove that God exists by proving that God created the earth and created humans. Paley’s version of the argument is commonly recognized by the “watchmaker” analogy which is as follows.
McCloskey attempts to make an argument for the non-existence of God and to give reasons why atheism is more comforting than theism. This paper is a response to that article which will address certain ideas raised by Mr. McCloskey. This author is a theist and will present arguments to show the reasoning for the existence and necessity of God. To begin with, McCloskey suggests in his article that the theist’s arguments are “proofs” which do not provide definitive evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they should be discarded. This is not a justified argument due to the fact that theists do not try to definitely prove the existence of God.
“It would be misleading to think that all these factors influenced all scientists to the same degree. However, a major component of anyone’s theoretical outlook is his religious worldview (which could be atheism or agnosticism, as well as a traditional religion). Worldview had a far more significant influence on the origin of old-earth geology than has often been perceived or acknowledged. A person’s worldview not only affects the interpretation of the facts but even the observation of the facts. Another prominent historian of science rightly comments about scientists and non-scientists: ‘men often perceive what they expect, and overlook what they do not wish to
One might say that Dawkins’s view of Darwinism is a strict set of basic ideas and principles, embodying the definition of fundamentalism. While neither Graffin nor Dawkins deliver a completely consistent worldview, Graffin’s worldview seems to contain fewer fundamentalism characteristics than Dawkins’s. Dawkins’s view resembles the view of fundamentalist scientists and Darwinists. Although he claims he would change his views if evidence were to appear that God did exists, he seems set in his ways and resistant to other worldviews, which makes his claim hard to believe. Graffin does a better, though imperfect, job of embracing other