For the notion (a), though scientific evidences, such as the Big Bang Theory, suggest the “space-time” universe began to exist a finite time ago, but they may not be persuasive enough to show that the world truly had a beginning. For the notion (b), Mathematical equation “1+1=2” and logical principle “if P then P” are examples of non-physical things, and the relationship between God and other non-physical things becomes tricky. They seem eternal and it’s not very plausible to say that they began to exist at the Big Bang. They seem to be independent from God’s creation. Thus it’s problematic to claim that God is responsible for everything in such kind of universe.
Creatio ex nilho simply put means creation out of nothing. Creatio ex nilho is a topical subject since it opposes the idea of God as a craftsman. It is unclear in the first Genesis account in Genesis 1 whether there was actually pre-existent material to craft whether he really did create ‘ex nilho’. There has also been a point made that when they said that God created ‘ex nilho’ he brought order to chaos rather than created ‘ex nilho’ Genesis 1 states it was only when God commanded on day 1, that the heavens and earth appeared. Whereas, Genesis 2 says our world was created by pre-existent material such as the creation of man from ‘dust.’ The idea ‘Creatio ex nilho’ lies originally with Augustine, he said ‘creation out of nothing’ does not relate to one particular moment but in fact the universe has its own time and space, which is eternal.
Although, these three arguments all agree in the way that they use unfound assumptions to prove what has yet to be proven; they do disagree on the studies of how to prove what really is God. The ontological argument believes that God is a “being”. The cosmological argument believes that God is “the universe”. Then there is the design argument which needs evidence to prove that there is a God. The Ontological argument seeks to prove that God does exist by proving, that He cannot not exist.
Anselm (1033–1109) had opposed an Ontological Argument that one understands God as a being and cannot conceive anything greater because God cannot be understood not to exist. On the other hand, another philosopher named Gaunilo objected Anselm’s Ontological Argument by suggesting that the same style of argument can be used to prove the existence of other entities, such as the idea of a greatest possible island. Although this may be the case, Anselm never got the opportunity to plead his case against Gaunilo’s objection. However, there are numerous biblical evidence to help support Anselm’s argument. Anselm’s Ontological Argument states that one understands that God, as a being, cannot be conceived a greater.
He also says there are a chain of causes and effects leading back to the beginning of the Universe. He did not believe in infinite regress, and so, for him, there had to be a first cause, and that first cause has to be God. Aquinas’ Cosmological argument has many positive points which could be used to prove the existence of God, and his argument is both logical and convincing. However, I believe there are some major flaws within it, and I hope to use these flaws to show that Aquinas’ Cosmological argument does not prove the existence of a God. The first point to Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological argument is about Motion.
Only McCloskey knows why he wrote this article with his reasons for not believing as he did write this piece as if he had been appointed to provide why and what their foundational arguments are against theists’ beliefs in God. To say that proofs do not prove the existence of God, is not justifying the evidence. According to Foreman, we must justify the evidence, distinguish the specific actions, how these actions universal judgments concerning right or wrong, and formulate ethical views in the evidence. Just because a proof is stated doesn’t mean it’s valid. We need to investigate and see why it is valid or invalid.
All human beings seek to be rational in what they do. Yes, science does provide a method of justifying rationality but God is the other part of the spectrum that science cannot explain. God is also another figure that provides rationality to someone who does not understand science the only path to salvation and to rationality is through religion. If this form of God takes 1000 different shapes across many religions, it does not make God untrue, it is just a manifestation. The biggest contradictory idea against the motion would be that of whether God can be proven empirically.
One of these is it has been significantly more of a challenge to demonstrate that God is not possible. An example of this would be that God is said to have extraordinary power which is omnipotence, but however can God create a triangle with 4 sides, or can he make a round square? This is raising the question of is can God ‘simply’ defy basic rules of logic… The theist under this explanation of God would reply that God is only omnipotent to the greatest possible extent therefore this theist could respond by claiming that God simply cannot do what is logically
Assess how far the cosmological argument proves that God exists (15 mark) Russell opposed to the cosmological argument as evidence for the existence of God. He added that Copleston was making a fallacy of composition, just because humans have a mother it does not mean the universe had to have a mother. The universe does not have to have a beginning. Russell is supporting the possibility of infinite regress or suggested that there may be no explanation for the universe. The universe may have always existed and that this is a 'brute fact'.
Truth is an elusive concept, one which relies less on fact than it does on individual perception; as such, it is evident to see that scientific criticisms of religious creation theories are without substance. These theories were simply perceived by the world of science to be physically impossible to support their own beliefs, whereas religious criticisms of the Big Bang theory are based on proven fact, rather than interpretation. In addition to this scientific bias, the Big Bang Theory is greatly flawed in its inability to explain proven scientific ideas about our universe which contradict the theory in its entirety. Yet still, the most conclusive proof of the supremacy of the idea of God as the creator is the singularity in the Big Bang theory that cannot be proven: everything with a beginning in time must have a beginner, one not accounted for in this scientific theory. Information pertaining to the creation of the universe, or lack thereof, suggests that the idea of a Divine Creator, as opposed to the Big Bang Theory, is the most reasonable premise regarding how our universe came to exist.