The point is; modern science is thought to be correct. We think we are right. Does this make everyone else wrong? Some of the earliest known philosophies on creation come from the works of Hesiod. In his Theogony he attempts to explain creation, and all that surrounds us, using myth.
“Scientific knowledge is an enabling power to do either good or bad – but it does not carry instructions on how to use it.”(64) Feynman supports This statement with a very interesting quote “To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell.”(64) My interpretation of this quote and how Feynman is relating the quote to value of science, it is humans who have to decide how to get to either heaven or hell based on the instructions they create from themselves. Scientist must do the same when creating scientific knowledge, they must create instructions to
Thus it’s problematic to claim that God is responsible for everything in such kind of universe. Another argument emphasizes the impossibility of an infinite number of past events. If the universe didn’t have a beginning, then there is an infinite number of past events up to now. As an infinite set should be unaffected by addition or subtraction of one, the past history should be unaffected if we add or remove some events. Yet it’s not plausible to say, for example, the history remains the same if we remove all the wars.
Based on knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe, science contradicts many aspects of religion and vice versa. The contention between science and religion has been an issue of debate for decades. The very first ground on which science and religion clash is the creation of the universe itself. Religious people believe that God is the master architect of the universe, that is, God is the creator of our world as stated in the book of genesis. However, this sounds irrational to scientists who believe in evidence only.
The argument itself is leads down an inductive route and in itself tries to prove the existence of god, being through experience and though evidence of the existence of the universe, therefore enabling the ability for the argument to be a posteriori one; a posteriori argument starts from experience of the universe and argues by the induction back to god. Thomas’s ideas were originally from the philosophers Plato and Aristotle, whom in the end concluded that the creator of humanity and the world as we know it was caused by a very intelligent being, uncaused causer or an unmoved mover. People whom of studied the cosmological argument conclude different philosophies or hypothesises depending on what their faith or religion dies down to. Thomas Aquinas was a Theist whom of which used 3 ways to reach his conclusion of this principle; his three ways were based upon Aristotle’s philosophy of their having to be an unmoved mover. The argument
Like any new ideas, his ideas faced objection. As part of his process of thinking, Descartes included these objections and his responses to the objections in his works in order to better prove his position. Descartes believed that he proved the existence of a perfect being because any human can conceive what it is to be a perfect being. As Descartes said in the Meditations, “…from the mere fact that there is within me an idea of something more perfect than me, it follows that this thing really exists”(AT 52). Descartes believed that in order to have this idea of a being that is truly infinite; something must have put that idea in our mind.
‘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.
However this design was not based on just purpose Paley referred to regularity in his argument observing the universe and concluding it demanded an intelligent mind and some explanation. He had evidence to support his view referring to Newton’s laws of motion and gravity and putting forward the idea that the rotation
On the other hand, the ideas of creation science is derived from the conviction of most Abrahemic religions that God created the universe-including humans and other living things-all at once in the relatively recent past. Creationists say that creatures started out as distinct and separate organisms when God created them and they do not believe that organisms change into complete differently and distinct animals through evolution. For example, Creationists do not believe that single-celled organisms evolved into more complex plants and animals, finally evolving into Homo Sapiens. Even though creationism is not a scientific theory, Creationists are using scientific evidence in supporting their argument that Darwinism can not be proven scientifically based on the fact that Darwinism goes against creationism. Besides criticizing evolution, Creationists are seeking scientific evidence of their own to support the creation account in Genesis.
For our purposes, theism will be defined as belief in the existence of God, as defined above. Atheism, then, is the “critique and denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism” (Nagel 168). These two views provide metaphysical arguments concerning the nature of man and God. A third commonly held belief about the existence of God is known as agnosticism. Agnosticism is the purely epistemological stance that sufficient evidence does not exist for or against theism therefore the best stance on the argument is no stance at all.