Richard Dawkin's Ontological Argument

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