This is not true. One can be moral and not believe in God. One who is moral but does not believe in good might believe, for example, there is a creative principle at in the Universe. We, human, do not need to belong to any religion in order to have a since of moral right or wrong. Moral righteousness in natural is not centered on supernatural faith.
I feel that this argument fails to prove the existence of God. There is no real proof that God created the universe or people based on the teleological argument, although it is a valid argument, I just do not think that it is plausible that God created the earth. There are many other theories that give more evidence and better proof that counter the teleological argument. Works
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
We cannot judge God, nor his actions because he is a non cognitive being. Only God knows the future, and therefore when it is appropriate to intervene. Therefore, through miracles he is not favouring some of his creation over others, but the good of the whole creation itself. Furthermore, our free will stops God from intervening in every situation, because according to Swinburne, if we do not have the capacity to damn ourselves, we are not truly free agents. However this does not necessarily overcome the problem of God favouring his creation because by having the ability to intervene, but not at every moment he can prevent evil from happening to some but not too others.
Despite the great possibilities that God might not be real, humans hold on to the idea; therefore, humans will have something to give faith to. For example, Nietzche says, “ What water is there for us to clean ourselves.” Without this faith a human might see himself as useless. In addition, no confidant, not even hitherto, has ever been revealed to prove God. Thus, Nietzche warns of the influence that religion gave us. Wiesel's Forward Statement: “But now, I no longer pleaded for anything.
The counter argument to this though, is that animals do not fall under his jurisdiction and so the brutality that is nature is out of his control. God can only then make humans all good; which is apparent to be untrue (war, rape, murder.) In effect, Gould has showed that there could very validly be no active god. Whichever way a person’s belief systems lean, this paper by Stephen Jay Gould is a very insightful read into one way of thinking. Whether that means it solely educates those who firmly believe in god that there are other views, or it converts a person to non religious views, it is a worthwhile read.
While scientology is not considered a religion on this table, I feel it still lacks things other religions have and believe also that things it claims are facts have been claimed to be wrong through science. I believe it is a sect because they seem to have religious ideas but they also
Via negative features often in Buddhism’s religious language. Though they do not actually have a God, and therefore do not describe one, but they use it to put across the idea of a human reality in efforts to make the difficult concept of a God or divine power easier to describe. The theory of via negative has both advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that it helps us to comprehend God and understand that he cannot be limited to the physical world, and to experience him, we must go one step further. It also allows human beings to get their minds around the fact that Gods knowledge and being is beyond anything our human minds can comprehend, let alone try to describe with ‘positive’ words.
However, the scientific method is only a way of seeking the truth. It does not in any way reach the truth. There is no way to test every single circumstance to know for sure that the results are completely factual. However, the scientific method is at least testing and research is being done. The old way of just debating a theory is the not a realistic means to the
Swinburne counted this by claiming that the order in the universe does require an explanation. As some is not even necessary for human survival. Just because we are there to observe it does not make it less unlikely. However Charles Darwin formulated the theory of natural selection which provided an alternative explanation for the design of the world, without reference to creation by God. ‘Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for this existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind’ Richard Dawkins supports Darwinian evolution and rejects God.