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’.
The teleological theory offers no scientific evidence, or evidence of any kind for the creation of the universe, it is based loosely on an analogy. The analogy opinion is too broad to be valid. I believe that things like volcanos and earthquakes that happen naturally are better explained by science. These things seem more probable in a universe that was created randomly by science, by the big bang, than if the universe was created specifically for a certain function by
J. Ayer claimed that to speak of a designed universe is meaningless. Unless we could say what the world would have been like without a designer, we cannot reach the conclusion that this world is designed. Who establishes that there is beneficial order in the universe? How do we argue from that to the conclusion that god has designed it? Swinburne counted this by claiming that the order in the universe does require an explanation.
Pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. Pseudoscience is based more on feelings, hunches, and intuitions. Pseudoscientists are motivated by considerations that lie outside the scope of science, or have already been thoroughly discredited. For example, the creditability that the month of our birth has to do with our personalities and what happens to us on specific days of the years, or in other words, astrology. The purpose of pseudoscience is to provide explanation for occurrences or behaviors that are not scientifically proven.
McCloskey states that one of the major problems is believing in an uncaused first cause. He states that the mere existence of the universe does not constitute for believing in a being (God). While McCloskey has this view, we learn in the readings of Evans and Manis (2009), that the term contingency of the universe is often used to refute the question of what about the universe support the claim that God exists (pg. 69). This merely states that if we look around at the universe we will see things that may or may not have existed if there was not a God or other necessary being.
How successful is the teleological argument in proving the existence of God? The teleological argument is an a posteriori argument: it tries to justify the existence of God by asking “Why are we here?” Is it due to design or chance? The argument goes as far back as the days of Cicero and has been objected by the likes of Charles Darwin. One of the first known teleological arguments is the argument from analogy, which is argued by William Paley and Aquinas. Paley believes that some natural objects display design like qualities- they display a fitness to purpose.
This is where the theories of the Big Bang and Evolution fail. They attempt to arrive at the conclusion that this universe is eternal, but their own scientific theories about the age of the structure in which we live force even the most dedicated Atheist to admit that it was indeed created at some point in time. Therefore, if the universe was created, something greater than the universe was the engineer behind its initial
ike Anaxagoras and Empedocles, the atomists wanted to answer the basic post- Eleatic question: if change cannot occur in the real, then how does it occur in the observable world? Also like the previous two philosophers, they answered this question by postulating the existence of certain elements of the cosmos that are real in the Parmenidean sense and by claiming further that through analyzing the arrangement and rearrangement of these basic elements, we can arrive at an account of the visible world without having to admit that there is any change on the level of the real. But whereas the two previous pluralists rejected the Eleatic notion that what exists is one in kind, the atomists retained this contraint. The atomists posit just one kind of real thing — tiny, indivisible atoms, swimming around in a void. This account of reality is by far most sophisticated of all those ventured by the Presocratics, and it even comes alarmingly close to anticipating the modern scientific view of ultimate reality.
These scientists are very important to the modern science community because they are the ones that vastly changed our views of space. These scientists have helped society gain the knowledge we have today, without which would have placed our scientific knowledge of the universe in its infancy. Being a scientist of Astronomy was not easy during the Elizabethan era. Many people were devout Catholics who followed the teachings of the church. These teachings included beliefs that God created the universe as well as controlled the universe.
There are so many examples throughout history that can explain why science and religion can coexist and why it can work in the years to come. What religious people and scientists don't