this. Special beliefs that they held about the creation of people were: “the only thing that the world lacked was a symbol of God”, “Seeing this, Prometheus sculpted a figure, man, out of earth.”, and “This figure was to symbolize the gods, thus human life is formed” (“Roman Creation Myth”). As evident from the quotes, one can see that the Romans’ beliefs were quite odd from what a human living in the present day would believe in. These beliefs are ‘special’ to a present-day human as the Romans created these myths based strictly off of their imagination. In the current age, one would not need to create their own stories because we now have correct information because of the scientific knowledge that is currently present.
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’.
All humans have a set of basic beliefs about Gods existence, which determine our views about the existence of miracles. Theists, also known as realists, believe that God literally exists as a real divine being, and this includes the characteristics, which are intrinsic to Gods existence of omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence. A traditional view of theism is also called realism, as they believe God to be a real entity and not just a projection of human imagination. Extreme liberal supporters who believe that God is simply a projected of human imagination are called anti-realists. They say that God does not exist in an objective and real sense; they do not think he is a real human entity existing in the world.
Assess the claim that the universe provides no evidence for the existence of an omnipotent god’ 35 marks It is often claimed by philosophers that the universe provides no evidence for the existence of an omnipotent god due to the fact there are flaws in this argument. Firstly, the idea of god being omnipotent, simply means that god would be ‘all-powerful to do anything that is possibly logical to do’, which is an idea explored by Aquinas. This idea would solve problems created by Dawkins who suggested the idea that god being omnipotent is incoherent. Yet by suggesting that god is all powerful in things that is logical would mean that he would not do illogical such as change the past of change what humans believe is fact such as 2+2=4. Therefore both Aquinas and Dawkins would suggest that the God could in fact be an omnipotent being as it is still logical for him to be so.
Meanwhile, McCloskey believes that the only conclusion we can reach is that something caused the universe to exist. From reading his article, I feel that he does not formulate a valid argument as to how the power exists or how it created the universe. He goes onto to describe any creator that could exist is either a powerful being or a muddler and is not a god, but an evil spirit or a being that had very disastrous consequences due to their limitations ( McCloskey, pg.64). McCloskey closes his argument of the cosmological argument by stating that belief in either is not a source of strength or security ( McCloskey,
This process removed blind adherence to tradition from science, and allowed scientists to logically find answers through the use of reasoning.1 One scientist by the name of Nicolaus Copernicus created the heliocentric model of the universe. This states
Aquinas generalizes everything in the universe based on the small amount of things he has actually seen or experienced. These generalizations should not be made without strong evidence. It can also be argued that not taking your surroundings into account whilst considering the universe is a huge error of over simplification, which makes the argument of induction seem week. David Hume however had a very strong empiricist view on the universe and can say that the assumptions based on what’s around us can only be applied to the present and do not provide any information on the past or future of the universe. Bertrand Russell also put forth the argument that the universe is a brute fact and it created itself.
It is a common misconception in today’s society that Christians can fully understand the Laws of Physics or science. Secularists question the ability to understand mechanisms when one can also put their faith in a “supernatural” God. Contrary to popular belief, theistic scientists have dominated many of the breakthroughs in understanding God’s design. As early as the 1500’s, Polish astronomer Nicholas Copernicus was the first person to put forward the mathematically based system of planets going around the sun and was known to refer to God in his works because he did not think it conflicted with the Bible. Another noteworthy individual is Albert Einstein who was a great physicist but viciously attacked for his beliefs and even had his life threatened for believing in God.
Caitlyn Hammond November 7th, 2011 The beginning of the end In ancient times, the Greeks relied heavily on their gods to explain the natural phenomena happening around them. The sun rose and fell when Apollo drove his chariot across the sky, the ocean was controlled by Posiden and the Heavens by Zeus. However, not all Greeks were satisfied by this explanation. Out of this, grew the Pre Socratic philosophers and more importantly the material monists. The three material monists are considered the first "Physicists" because they were the first to attempt to explain the natural phenomena without reference to the divine.
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.