Existance of God by Scientific Rationality

In Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?, Alvin Plantinga argues that proponents of naturalism, like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, tell us that, according to the theory of evolution, neither God nor any other agent has designed or created the living world, and that evolution, therefore, clearly contradicts the central tenant of theistic religion (which Dennett labels “entirely gratuitous fantasy” ). If what these experts say is true and we must understand evolution only in the context of naturalistic, unguided evolution, “then evolutionary theory is deeply incompatible with theistic religion, whether Christian…or Jewish.” However, Plantinga stresses that evolution does not need to be interpreted in this way, and that, because of this, religion does not have to be held in such opposition to science at all. Christian and Jewish doctrines require only that “God intended to create creatures of a certain kind…planned that there be creatures of that kind…and acted in such a way as to accomplish this intention,” and such a claim is clearly consistent with evolutionary theory in that naturalism is not a necessary requirement of the theory itself. In this paper I will explore the positions of the Jewish faith with respect to the question of evolutionary theory, and, more explicitly, will draw comparisons between Judaism and Christianity to investigate whether popular religion is as staunchly opposed to evolutionary theory as Dawkins and Dennett propose. If the work of

Supporters of the argument could use the idea that God is unique and outside the laws of nature. But even so, this point weakens the argument as there is no proof of the attributes of God. Many may ask these questions: Why does the universe have to be caused? Why cannot it always have been there?

Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those super personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

Rachel Woznicki Short Paper 1 01/27/15 What Does Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism Say? Plantinga’s argument against naturalism is very engaging. He begins to state that a lot of people believing Darwin’s theory of evolution have misguided beliefs about naturalism. Comprehensively, he argues that the contingency of humans having stable “cognitive faculties” is extremely inferior.

Weaknesses of the argument One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be. This is contradictory. Also, by definition, God is uncaused.

The Cosmological Argument, in my opinion, does provide "proof" that a God or Superhuman being exist. According Rowe (2007), the Cosmological Argument lies with the fundamental premise of Principle of Sufficient Reason or PSR (Rowe, 2007). However, Rowe would argue that no one has succeeded at showing  that PSR is an assumption that most of us share (Rowe, 2007, p.32). As far as "proof", I believe the argument does a "sufficient" job at proving God's existence using a logical argument of deductive validity. Deductive validity identifies the premise of the argument asking only one question, If the premises were true, would its conclusion have to be true (Rowe, 2007, p. 22). A yes or no answer to this vital question will help you to reach a conclusion.

“Does Science Make the Belief in God Obsolete?” by Kenneth Miller and Christopher Hitchens debate with no date of the discussion.

Since the dawn of mankind religion has been one of the most significant elements of a society’s social and cultural beliefs and actions. However, this trend has declined due to the general increase in knowledge regarding our the natural sciences. Where we had previously attributed something that we didn’t understand to the working of a higher power, is now replaced by a simple explanation offered by natural sciences. While advocates of Religion may question Natural Sciences by stating that they are based on assumptions, it is important to note the Natural Sciences are based on theories and principles which can be proven using mathematical equations and formulas. Faith however contrasts from the easily visible feasibility of data

The question of God’s existence has been pondered by humans for centuries. There are an infinite number of different opinions, arguments, and ideas favoring for or against the idea of God. Personally, I strongly believe in God not only due to my religious affiliation, but also because of my own opinions, ideas, and experience. To begin with, the complexity of Earth and the life that has formed upon it cannot be based just on luck or chance. I believe that ultimately God, as a power, rather than a mystical being is the one created and controls the universe. Although the God and his authority are not entirely comprehensible by humans, it’s our faith as worshiper that eventually lead us to a greater understanding.

The question "Does God Exist?" is a well-known asked question in the world. Most people believe they know the answer to it. The religious people would say, well of course he does, while the non-religious people or atheist would say no He does not exist. Because evil exist and chaos exists, God cannot be all-powerful. In the modern world, there are many different opinions as to whether a God exists or not. This has been an issue of great dispute because many people reverence different gods or no god at all. For years, many philosophers have come up with theories, proofs, and hypotheses to prove the existence of God, and a canon of arguments has been developed. The Arguments for the Existence of God sets out to explain the everyday philosophical arguments for theism, and so to explore the case for the existence of God. The arguments themselves are arranged under the following headings: The Ontological Argument, The Cosmological Argument, The Teleological Argument, and The Moral Argument will determine if there really is a God.

Firstly, we shall focus on the Design (or to use its philosophically technical term, the teleological argument). There are numerous variants of the Design argument, however we shall be focusing on Paley’s version (reference 1) of this theory. Paley’s version of the Design argument is based upon the idea that by looking around at certain features of the world (for example an inanimate object like a rock or say a living creature like dolphin or a person like myself) and theorising that they are too complex and intricate to randomly just manifest. They must have been created by a higher, more intelligent power and thus, if this is accepted as being so, then this proves beyond doubt that God exists.

Whether god exists or not has been in discussion for thousands of years, and an important discussion. Whether it is rational to believe in god or not is another story, like believing in god itself, this topic has brought many discussions. It is one thing to discuss whether god is real or not and it is a complete other to discuss whether it is rational to believe in god or not. I believe that while there may not be any convincing evidence or arguments that God does exist, I do still believe that it is still rational to believe that god does exist. I think this because, believing in God is not simply just believing that he exists, but believing that it can bring good to our lives, we otherwise would not have. It teaches us to have a moral

The philosophical arguments presented in this document are not of religious text, nor scientific observation or established fact. Rather the premise of this God proof is bring together and share the various theories on which other God proofs have established foundations. I have heard it quoted that “Philosophy goes where hard science can 't, or won 't. Philosophers have a license to.” Therefore, with this in mind, I attest that it is more than problematic to construct an argument authenticating the unequivocal proof of the existence God. If nothing else this may be food for thought.

The famous William Paley has a different ontological argument within his text Natural Theology. The title of the reading gives insight to the theory, which focuses on something called natural design. The writing is based on an intricate and extensive analogy between the man made and the natural. For instance, Paley describes a man made watch in great detail. This intense detail sets the notion that each piece must have been put in place by someone, whom we can infer is a watchmaker. He then compares this to the intricacy of nature, which must have been made by a supreme diety. Such complexity could not have come about by chance. Only the most

Science “aims to save the spirit, not by surrender but by the liberation of the human mind” (Wilson, 7). Both religion and science seek to explain the unknown. Instead of surrendering reasoning with the traditional religion, a scientific approach one takes full authority over it. Being an empiricist, Wilson takes favors the scientific approach to the question: “why are things the way they are?” This question can pose two meanings: How did this happen, and what is the purpose. Traditional religion answers this question with stories, many of which are impossible to prove or disprove, making them arguments of ignorance. These explanations entail the adherent surrender reasoning and put faith in the resolution. According to Wilson these are always wrong (Wilson, 49). Science is the most effective way to learn about the natural world. Religion is merely speculation.