Richard Dawkin's Ontological Argument

Improved Essays
The purpose of this paper is to explore the two different arguments provided by two different philosophers regarding the metaphysical and science. John Polkinghorne’s ontological argument and Richard Dawkin’s unwavering belief of evolution. Although I believe Polkinghorne’s argument to be undeniably incorrect. I plan to present the strongest evidence for both arguments in an attempt to ultimately see which one is most viable. I may add supporting claims from other philosophers throughout the text to reinforce my argument. While providing fair evidence on both sides, I will expand on my own belief that Dawkin’s argument is most plausible due to the logical reasoning he brings forth. Beginning this altercation is Polkinghorne’s ontological argument …show more content…
To accusations that Dawkins has made, Polkinghorne gives the reader an alternate perspective and brings it to light. He believes the reason why it has gone all into chaos is because God has given human beings free will. More specifically, God gave humans the ability to choose between good and evil. This is what sets humans apart from any other species on the planet. I think Polkinghorne is essentially trying to say is that humans have a soul. A supernatural characteristic that makes human beings more than just what is considered to be an animal. At the same time, God has purposely limited his power in order for us humans to truly be humans. In other words, he believes that God has created humans and everything in the universe, but he allows his creation to truly be free and to choose how we define ourselves as a race. Hence why we question or doubt theology and his testimony. With this in mind, not everything that happens in the world is in God’s control or will. Along with science being used as a tool of communication, this is Polkinghorne’s bottom line …show more content…
Because according to theology, God was created and did not just exist. This is a contradictory claim within itself. One theory that Dawkins also explores is evidence of God’s existence throughout the universe. Seeing is believing or in this case providing evidence for logical reasoning is sound. Since there is no trace of evidence, God cannot exist. In fact, science blatantly disproves religion because there are traces of science everywhere, evolutionists study it every day. Religion builds its claim on science and tweaks it along the way. Now after reading this statement, one might argue miracles are a strong form of evidence for the ontological argument. What exactly does a miracle entail? An event that has taken place that violates the laws of nature. The only evidence we have to make a miracle viable is the claim the prophets have made from The Bible. The probability of these prophet’s claims to be one hundred percent true with no exaggeration or minor tweak are highly unlikely. Let us say they were telling the truth and the miracles really did occur. Why must God be the only solution to this highly unlikely event? Naturalism can easily be a simple solution, which explains them as being the result of natural forces. John Mackie argues epistemological reasons of why there is not sufficient evidence for a claim that miracles actually occurred. Two circumstances have to be satisfied in order for the

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Still, Behe’s bias disqualifies his argument from bearing the title of science. A supernatural cause is not one that can be reliably tested to any extent, and it is immune to falsifiability. Behe’s leap from natural evidence to the existence of God is a personal choice with no natural evidence to support it. If he intended to stay within the realms of science, then it would be necessary to draw a natural conclusion. One way to do this is by suggesting the Darwinian evolution mechanism is incapable of explaining the complexity of several biological complexes.…

    • 1345 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The Holy Spirit is “in the category of the Self-existent” in that He is not something that was begotten in time. Nazienzus’ opponents try to suggest that the Holy Spirit is some sort of cosmic accident caused by the will of God, but this is nonsensical. How can an accident fill people like John the Baptist and Sampson to do such mighty works in the name of the Lord, yet be subverted to the role of a cosmic accident? The Holy Spirit is not simply an activity either, for the Holy Spirit “has all the qualities which belong clearly to one that moves” and not simply the qualities of movement itself. If the Holy Spirit is simply a person, but not the divine person, “how are we made perfect in Him,” and how does He conform people into the image of God?…

    • 1159 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    POPPER, KUHN AND LATOUR'S EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENTS Popper's philosophy is based on falsifiability, thus he would side with Lennox. There are a lot of gaps in the science when it comes to evolution and the origin of life. There are also a lot of phenomenons that Dawkins cannot explain by using pure science, because he believes that the specific explanations have not been discovered yet. Lennox uses falsifiability as his main argument in many situations to counter Dawkins' theories. Lennox uses God to explain all of these phenomenons and because God cannot be falsified by using science, Popper would side with Lennox rather than Dawkins.…

    • 1563 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    It is possible to prove that truth exists but belief is almost impossible. A belief can be explained in many different ways like the different religions do in explaining the existence of God, but truth can only be explained in only one way, what the proponents of this theory expect. The concept of God’s existence is a belief proposal and not a truth. A belief proposal is not a knowledge whereas a truth is based on the knowledge. When the proponents of the theory of conflicting truths argue against the existence of God, they seem to interpret it as a knowledge and not a belief proposal, and when they fail to find the knowledge to support the existence of God, then they discredit the same existence.…

    • 1726 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Other than the clear statement that God was the initial cause for all things that exist, it appears God is exempt from causation. Non-theists suggest that if something clearly causes itself to exist, therefore nothing exists before it exists at all. Logically, the idea seems impossible. While arguments posed criticize the cosmological argument and its flaws, it does not prove it to be false. However, while taking into account the lack of present evidence, the argument for God’s existence based on his apparent creation of the universe is lacking with insufficient credibility to go behind it.…

    • 1350 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The second argument is that if everything in the universe needs a cause, then so must God. Manis and Evans make the observation that God is not a contingent being so it is unnecessary to provide an explanation of his beginnings. They point out that God would not be God if we humans were able to trace His origins. Through this reasoning we can believe that God is the…

    • 742 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Kantian Theory Of Religion

    • 2435 Words
    • 10 Pages

    If this is so then, the Kingdom of God could not currently be established, nor could it ever be established. The Kingdom of God, according to the teachings of Jesus is free from evil. Evil still exists on earth, so there could be no Kingdom now. Also, according to Kant, man can never achieve the highest good, so the Kingdom of God on Earth could never be established, because there is no evil in the Kingdom of God according to the teachings of Jesus, who Kant believes we should learn from. If Kant means that the kingdom is to come then how can it come if we cannot fully reach the highest good?…

    • 2435 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    God created a universe so magical that sometimes you cannot believe how you got here. The Laws of Logic cannot be denied. In fact, any reasonable or logical argument against the existence of these laws requires their existence in the first place. The Laws of Logic were created not to be questioned because they precede God’s existence or to recognize him even if he is invisible or…

    • 921 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    People don’t believe in God based on an argument. The belief is simply that, something one just knows to be true, like that the world didn't just pop into existence five seconds ago. Therefore, there is no conflict between the two. On the contrary, there does seem to be a conflict between a particular religion, naturalism and science (evolution). Naturalism is the belief that there isn't any such person as God.…

    • 853 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Self-evident propositions are propositions in which the evidence of its truth lies in the proposition itself. Aquinas says “God exists” is a self-evident proposition in itself. Which is true, but just stating “God exists”, does not permit for those who do not believe God exists, to understand how the proposition will prove any existence. In order for a proposition to be self-evident to us, there must be an understanding in addition to the proposition being self-evident within itself. An atheist may argue that solely saying “God exists” does not imply he actually exists, there has to be further analysis in order to make an atheist question whether or not God exists.…

    • 1008 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays