Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Religion and philosophy
The Relations Between Religion and Science
Essay on philosophy of religion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The philosophy of religion is and always has been a very interesting topic. The existence of God has been debated since the beginning of history and is still debated to this day. Many very influential people have shared their thoughts and arguments to this popular debate. Of these influential thinkers are William Paley and Roger White. Paley, a British thinker living in the late 1700s, believed since that the world appeared to be “created” then it must have been created by a higher power. Many people thought and still think that this argument is valid. White on the other hand, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has a different view on theism. He states that since our world is life permitting, there must be a higher …show more content…
Paley presents his argument by using an analogy. In his paper titled “The Argument from Design”, he tells his readers to imagine a watch. He then says that since the watch has so many complex and interconnected components, that there is has to be someone who created it. This person would be a watchmaker. Paley then uses this same logic when thinking about nature. He basically says that there is no way that the earth could have been created without a creator. Therefore, there must be a “divine watchmaker” or a God. He compares eyeballs of humans to the complicated mechanisms within a watch. Paley simply could not believe that these “things” could just appear. In his example he refers to a number of “things”, such as the human eye. He said that the eye has such a purpose, and is designed so specifically that something must have created it. He believed that a higher power must have created these …show more content…
While it is hard to dismiss Paley’s idea of a “divine creator”, the logic in White’s argument seems is stronger for a number of reasons. One being is that Paley believed that God created each individual thing separately. Using Darwin’s theory, which is accepted science in today’s word, this is disproved. Darwinism has proved that animals and plants have evolved and adapted over time through natural selection. This means when a living thing has a favorable trait, over time this trait will become standard. An example of this in nature is the opposable thumb on humans. This feature allows humans to easily grasp objects. Humans, who evolved from primates, gained this trait over time. Therefore, God did not specifically design humans like Paley claims he
The main argument here though, would be valid and would be that the universe was not created by chance. The universe was created for a purpose. Obviously Paley was trying to get the message that God was above all and that he created the heavens and the Earth and was the most powerful. But he did it to where it was neither making a valid point nor conflicted with itself. His argument does not have a true premise, or it’s not entirely accurate. It is neither been proven or disproven.
...erfect goodness and is morally good all the time. Paley's supreme being is never attributed with being a good or bad, loving or hateful, individual. A second important characteristic of God is that he is omniscient; he knows everything about anything there is to know; although Paley's supreme being is intelligent enough to engender the first creation, it does not imply that he knows about all the subsequent creations which rose from that first creation. Thirdly, God is considered to be all-powerful or omnipotent while the supreme being possesses the power to create the first creation. Lastly, God is an eternal being whose existence defies space and time. At the start of Paley's a posteriori argument, it was concluded that while anything that shows evidence of creation has a creator, such creator exists or has existed at one point in time but is by no means eternal.
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
The Teleological argument, given by William Paley in 1802 states that there is a “Designing Creator”, and that everything in this world has been designed to fulfill some sort of function. He bases this argument using a traditional time piece, a watch, as an analogy. Paley states that the watch, unlike a stone or a rock, could not have been placed or created by accident, and that the existence of a watch is proof that there must be a watchmaker. He compares this watch to the existence of the universe, stating that the universe itself is proof that there is some sort of designer present, and like a watch (but unlike a rock or stone) could not have been created by accident. He then continues to state that further evidence of a God can be found in the supposed “regularity” of the universe. Paley claims that due to the universe behaving in a very apparent manner, while retaining boundaries (Newtons laws of motion, etc) that this is a very apparent display of a God having rule over a very mechanical universe. Now Darwin on the other hand was a large
The Proof of the Existence of God There are many arguments that try to prove the existence of God. In this essay I will look at the ontological argument, the cosmological. argument, empirical arguments such as the avoidance of error and the argument from the design of the. There are many criticisms of each of these that would say the existence of God can’t be proven that are perhaps.
H.J. McCloskey claims that “proofs” are not valid and do not provide enough evidence that God exists. In the article, he claims that these “proofs” should be abandoned but he also claims that theist do not come to God or religion solely based on these “proofs”. In the article on page 62, McCloskey quotes a colleague saying, “most theist do not come to believe in God as a result of reflecting on the proofs, but come to religion based on other reasons and factors.” Theists believe in God and His Word over any “theory” that scientist can come up with. The Bible outweighs any other “theory” to theists. Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Atheists may make a good argument that God does not exist but there is no documented evidence proving evolution like the documented writings in the Bible telling the story of how God created the heavens and the earth. McCloskey is correct that “proofs” do not prove God’s existence but they do help see the viewpoint of theists. It is ultimately up to each person to believe in what they want to believe in. God gave us free will to be able to choose for ourselves. McCloskey talks about free will negatively and also brings up the point that since evil exists, God cannot. This is not true by any means and we will dispute McCloskey’s points throughout this essay.
The creator can only determine the Christian worldview and the origin of life. As followers of Christ, we believe that in (Genesis 1:1) with just the spoken word, creation was set in place. This view is what theism places as the foundation of a belief in God. In its consistency through out the Bible our origin is displayed in faith and by understanding (Hebrews 11:3).
what is normal and usual; that it is not usual to be able to describe
He had two different approaches to how the universe was created. Paley compared a watched the way the universe, he thought the world was like a machine it must have a des... ... middle of paper ... ... nthropic Principle’ believed that ‘Nature produces living beings but with fine tuning that is found in the universe; life could just as easily not developed into earth’ I think that this quote is trying to say that the universe has been developed by evolution and was created by God, a designer.
Genesis 1:27 states ‘So God created humankind in his image…’ yet the theory of evolution proposes that there have been different species of humans in the past. Homo erectus was one of the first human species from around 2 million years ago, to which Homo sapiens evolved around 400, 000 years later (Michollet 2000: 82). There is an unexpected complexity to the modern man that was not known before Darwin’s theory. According to evolution, humanity has not always had the form it possesses today. This plural origin to humanity would disprove the idea that humans were made in the image of God – disproving the Christian doctrine of creation. Still, Samuel Wilberforce has argued that due to characteristics man has such as supremacy over the Earth and free will that the design of humankind is ‘utterly irreconcilable with the degrading notion of the brute origin of him who was created in the image of God…’ (Brooke 2012: 50). Wilberforce has used the works of geologist Charles Lyell to support his argument. In his ‘Principles of Geology’ Lyell has asserted that the continual extinction and renewal of a species ‘all in accommodation to the changes which must continue in the inanimate and habitable Earth’ is contradictory (Brooke 2012: 50). Lyell believes that the Earth is always sustaining life and because of this the theory of evolution seems unnecessary. It does not make sense
William Paley develops his view of the design argument through an example of a wristwatch. He has the reader imagine themselves coming across a watch on the ground. He then asks the reader how they think the watch came to be there or came to exist in the first place. Looking at the watch, Paley says that one will notice the intricate design of the watch and notice that all the parts were put together in such a way to serve a purpose, namely, to tell time. Paley believes that from looking at the watch we will be lead to think that the watch has a clever designer. The watch displays a certain evidence of its own design.
The existence of God is quite controversial issue. God has different names in the world, and a lot of people, strongly believe in his existence. While, on the other hand, there are also people who don’t believe in his existence. In their discussion entitled “Does God Exist?” William Lane Craig, who is the supporter of the idea of existence of God, debates with Austin Dacey, who is an atheist, on the idea of existence of God. They provide the strong arguments and their debates are quite interesting, and innovative (not similar to those arguments, we usually read about in book). These are the fresh views on the question of existence and non-existence of God.
He says design requires a designer, the works of nature also requires a designer and that designer is God. From this Paley creates his four arguments for God’s existence from analogies, which are argument from design is based on experience, argument from design assumes that we are different in kind, but same in degree, argument from design argues from mind/thought to design, and argument from design assumes that all things are created by matter.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Throughout Darwin's works the idea of the rejection of God as creator of man prevails. He alludes to prehistoric marine Ascidian larvae, as the predecessors to the later evolved human beings we are today. This would give credit for the creation of man to the process of evolution, not to the handiwork of a Supreme Being. "Species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species"(Appleman, 36). Darwin is showing here what conclusions he came upon about the "Origin of the Species", in which he used science to prove his theories. He is replacing God with ideas...
God can be defined as a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions (1). There are many people that do not believe in any religion. People who do not believe in a religion have no reason for believing in a God. People who do not believe in a God and argue against the existence of God are proving something that is completely false. There is a God for numerous reasons.