1) Logical evidence is limited in what it can prove regarding the existence of God. One reason is because of our limited experience with the material world and God.
Examples of logical arguments for God's existence are the ontological (Anselm of Canterbury and Descartes), cosmological (Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas) and teleological arguments. My favorite line of reasoning for God's existence is the Kalam cosmological argument. The Kalam argument says that everything which begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe has a cause. Now the cause of the universe is either personal or impersonal. But, based on what we know about how complex entities come into existence, it is plausible to believe that the universal cause of all things is personal.
2) Scientific arguments for God revolve around the universe's structure, its laws and constants. There are four basic physical forces that operate in the cosmos: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force. It has been observed that if electromagnetism were significantly weaker, then electrons would not be combine with atoms to form molecules. Furthermore, if the four basic forces were not fine-tuned as they appear to be, life as we know it would not be possible.
3) One argument that I've used recently with atheists has been the moral argument for God's existence, which was developed quite effectively by Immanuel Kant and suggested by Fyodor Dostoevski. The gist of this argument is that one must believe in God to make sense of morals or ethics. If God does not exist, or if we do not at least believe in God, then there is no foundation for absolute morality. It's also hard to make sense of similar morals that exist in diverse cultures, if God does not exist.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Two Ways to Argue for God's Existence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I don't want to be a science nazi or anything,but,actually molecules are formed by combinations of atoms,not by electrons combining with atoms.If a free electron were to combine with an existing atom all that would result would be an altering of the chemistry of said atom.Excellent article otherwise though.
AservantofJehovah:
I appreciate your input and want to be accurate when writing. But I think the wording in that paragraph came from Stephen Barr's work on ancient faith and modern physics, which is currently in my home library (I'm at work). However, what do you think of this information?
"Having the atomic number 6, every carbon atom has a total of six electrons. Two are in a completed inner orbit, while the other four are valence electrons—outer electrons that are available for forming bonds with other atoms.
The carbon atom's four valence electrons can be shared by other atoms that have electrons to share, thus forming covalent (shared-electron) bonds. They can even be shared by other carbon atoms, which in turn can share electrons with other carbon atoms and so on, forming long strings of carbon atoms, bonded to each other like links in a chain."
That's what I had in mind. Thanks!
Read more: Carbon - Why Carbon Is Special - Atoms, Atom, Electrons, and Molecule - JRank Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/1202/Carbon-Why-carbon-special.html#ixzz2KnqKdJxw
That's more like it.The space between the nuclei and the shells of atoms is what allows them to bond chemically one with the other,and,as I believe,you were trying to point out if the electromagnetic force were significantly stronger that space would narrow or even be eliminated preventing atoms from combining and thus forming of molecules.
A thought experiment:If I became shipwrecked on an island,what would be required to demonstrate that a)I am the only person on this island b)that there is at least one other person on said Island?
I've started a lot of interesting discussions with my atheist friends this way.
Good approach. It reminds me of Plantinga's reformed epistemology and the notion of basic beliefs.
Post a Comment