Week One Devotional Psa 111:2 (KJV), "The works of the LORD, are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein." Our devotional begins with whom all things begin and that is God. Not only is God creator of all things, visible and invisible, but He is the one who holds everything together. He holds all things together as He has placed them, and they function as He has purposed them to do so. The moon, the sun, the stars, the universe, the entire solar system including the earth are all held together and consist by Him and for Him (Col 1:17 KJV).…
In this paper I will explain and evaluate two popular arguments regarding the existence of God, A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God by Robin Collins and The Inductive Argument from Evil Against the Existence of God by William Rowe; then I will discuss how the conclusions are not compatible with one another due to the conflicting structure of the conclusions as well as how one cannot accept both conclusions without compromising one of the arguments. First I will explain the basis of Collins’ argument, which is one of the most frequently used arguments in favor of theism. In A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God, Collins centers around the observation of how finely tuned the physical constants of the universe are to the ability for any form of life to exist, if any of them were to change even the smallest bit then no life would possibly be able to develop not to…
In modern times religion and science are increasingly becoming viewed as incompatible, or at least non-overlapping. Damien Keown states that “Scientific discoveries, and theories such as evolution, have challenged many traditional Christian teachings…” at the expense of making them appear “...dogmatic, irrational, and backward-looking” (119). Despite its brief history in the West, Buddhism has gained increasing popularity in part due to its frequent portrayal as an exception to the conflict between scientific and spiritual thought. Proponents of this view—deemed “Buddhist Modernists” or “Secular Buddhists”—argue that Buddhism possesses certain qualities which make it compatible with a secular view of the world, while providing a source of purpose…
McCloskey’s article, “On being an atheist” presented ideals and points that were thought provoking. It can be seen from the beginning of the article, McCloskey is a proud, and seemingly closed minded atheist. This type of attitude when debating such a heavily weighted topic becomes difficult to engage and even persuade. Throughout his article, McCloskey discusses four areas that surround atheism. The four areas are: Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument, Problem of Evil, and Atheism as Comforting.…
Richard Dawkins is trying to argue that reality can be proven by scientific evidence and magic is used when we do not know why something happen the way they do. We classify something as real when proven by our five senses. However, “we are able to develop new technology and extend the reach of our senses. For example, a microscope to prove that bacteria does exist”. Although, we cannot see microbes with our naked eyes we can use an instrument to see it.…
Scientists have discovered theories such as evolution and natural selection that are backed up by solid proof instead of observations alone. As a result, if we were to argue that nature is too flawless in its construction, these theories seem more plausible than the belief of an invisible designer. Largely because they have gone through extensive research, unlike God who can’t really be proven. Some may then debate that the provided evidence for the existence of God is only at the disposal of those who understand it.…
Some reasons I don't believe in god because of the problem of evil existing, and the lack of scientific proof. I think our discusions on Richard Swinburne still has faults, and the other "proofs" for God are not proof so much as good ideas. Since I look for answers with proof, science became my solution to mmy questions. Science lead me to the incomplete idea that everything is determind because of natural laws and states. Thus it wasn't hard to belive in hard determinism, and it didn't change lack of belief in…
In fact he goes as far to say that science is one of the most pure doctrine since it can only tell the truth and nothing else. Dawkins also points out that society needs to be care and not mental abuse children by only feeding them religion and not…
The article published by Jerry Coyne, titled, Science and Religion Aren’t Friends, is one that demands that science and religion are incompatible, and he makes an attempt to destroy any possibility of compatibility between the two. He claims that religion is merely a fog of superstition that needs to get out of the way of scientific progress. “ And any progress- not just scientific progress- is easier when we’re not yoked to religious dogma.” Coyne argues for the value of science, a value that doesn’t have various religions arguing with one another about which one is right, there is simply one scientific truth. “In contrast, scientists don’t kill each other over matters such as continental drift.…
I would say to throw God out of the equation when considering the origins of the universe is quite ignorant, especially when examining all the evidence. However, that being said, science is quite limited; it can only examine what is physical and what can be observed naturally, it can not factor the supernatural into the equation; but this is not a reason to say that the supernatural can not exist. Just because something is outside our comprehension does not mean it can not be; an analogy ill use is this, if you were to go back in time to 1673 as an example, and put a radio in front of Isaac Newton and said “this machine right here can catch soundwaves” I think I can safely say that Isaac Newton would not be able to begin to imagine how that would be possible or even comprehend that; but does that mean it is not possible? No, because we know it is not, but it would have been outside his comprehension because he could not yet understand it. Is this not how it could be with God to us, we simply can not comprehend him because our minds simply don’t have the capacity.…
Yes, I agree with Mr. Dawkins with the idea that where are taking things to seriously. In todays society people are profiting off others by giving them false hope. This false hope includes religion, physics, fortune tellers. All these people are doing is using basic cold reading for the fortune tellers and physics they use this skill to continue sly guess your personal secrets and use that to strengthen there lie and make the audience truly believe in their so-called connection with the spirit world. I fond it hilarious when these physics and fortune tellers got it wrong and had to call on another person so that they can still look like they are not just guessing.…
Therefore, Dawkins needs more factual theories, rather than sentimental theories. The word sentimental was chosen because he does not have a plausible foundation for his theories. They are more like sophisticated opinions formulated by an irritated person. In this case, Dawkins seems very irritated with…
231 If Darwin thinks that species are weeded out through the process of natural selection, this would appear to negate what Paley believes, which is an intelligent Creator. Darwin preserves the ideologies put forth by Paley, in which a successor will not possess qualities, which are harmful to its creator or “possessor” as Darwin calls it. The possibility for Darwin’s theory to preserve any of Paley’s argument, involves seeing natural selection as part of a perfect design, with a creator who understands the designs, wherein some species are weaker than others, but not with the intention to do harm to other species.…
Atheistic naturalism must answer many question, but their answers are not further coming, dubious at best, or based on faulty reasoning. Questions such as to why is there something rather than nothing. The laws of logic. The beauty of mathematical principles, and there applications to the world around us. The necessary fine tuning of biological information.…
For one, Dawkins doesn’t rely on blind faith but rather what has been proven. He expressed how there was no God driving the evolution of all living things as proven by Darwin. Dawkins brought forward a form of comparison where he compared Evolution to a swerving driver. He said that if a car was werving you would think that an agent was controlling the car and in that case Lennox would be…