Does God Exist?

Yes
1. Design Argument
  1. William Payley's "Watchmaker Analogy"
    1. "If you saw a watch on a path, you would assume, because it is so complex that something must have created it: A watchmaker. The same can be said for life and it's complex ecosystems."
      1. Countered by Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection
        "Organisms mutate as they reproduce. Those organisms that survive better produce more offspring therefore their mutations become the norm for that organism over time. This allows for more and more complex life forms to develop."
      2. Very convincing until evidence for evolution is found by Charles Darwin in the Galapagos Islands
  2. "Life and the Universe is so complex and perfectly balanced that it can't be a coincidence and must have a designer; this designer is God."
    1. The Anthropic Principle counters this.
      1. If the universe were not the way it is then we would not be able to observe it therefore the only universe we can observe would be one that allowed for our survival.
    2. Leap of faith at "this designer is God".
2. Ontological Argument
  1. "God is by definition perfect. A God that does not exist is less perfect than a God that does as a non-existent God couldn't act his will therefore God exists."
    1. Fails on a logical level as it makes the assumption God exists at the beginning of the argument.
3. Cosmological Argument
  1. Everything has a first cause. If something happens something happens something must have happened to cause it. These events be traced back to the beginning of the universe itself therefore God created the universe.
    1. Ignores the possibility of a force or object acting outside the dimension of time. A theory that looks increasingly likely.
    2. Universe caused by "The Big Bang".
      1. This is only a theory.
      2. God caused "The Big Bang"?
    3. Why doesn't God need a cause?
      1. God is outside of space and time.
        Why can't the universe be outside of space and time?
4. Moral Argument
  1. "God is where we obtain our universal sense of right and wrong."
    1. Freud would argue that we inherrit a sense of right and wrong from our parents suggesting ideas to us in our childhood.
    2. Richard Dawkin's idea of "The Selfish Gene" would suggest an inherrent gene in a vast majority of humanity that stops us from killing and harming under normal cirumtances as it promotes the survival of the gene.
      1. Whilst this theory is very believable in theory large proportions of evidence are yet to surface in it's favour.
5. Religious Experience
  1. "So many people have had religious experiences/ contact from God that they can't all be lying/ wrong."
    1. Wishful thinking could make a person interpret something that was a simple sound like the rustling of leaves as a message from God because their subconscious "wants" God to exist.
    2. Many religious experiences contradict each other therefore if an unknown majority of them must be wrong it makes no logical sense to believe any one of them.
No
1. Bertrand Russel's "Celestial Teapot"
  1. "If I claim there is a teapot orbiting the sun between us and it you would immediately dismiss my claim as I have no evidence supporting it. However you cannot disprove it.
    1. The burden of proof lies on those making the claim.
    2. There is no evidence supporting the existence of God therefore it makes no sense to believe he, she or it exists.
2. Contradiction
  1. At points religious scriptures, for example The Bible, contradict themselves therefore they are not the word of God and their evidence is invalid.
    1. These scriptures are simply metaphors and not intended to be taken literally.
      1. At points when the bible gives explicit instructions it contradicts itself still.
3. Flaws in the scripture
  1. There are areas of The Bible that are clearly factually incorrect or were not in earlier translations e.g. Genesis and The Holy Trinity This shows that the whole book could easily be falsified, misinterpreted or even simple stories.
    1. This is a very bold claim to make.
4. "God of the gaps"
  1. Like the ancient gods of the past God today is simply used as an explanation for scientific facts we do not yet understand.
    1. This means that the very concept of God is slowing scientific progress.

Nächster

Does God Exist?

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von Owen Lyons vor mehr als 10 Jahre