0 Likes | 10 Views | Sep 12, 2024 PART 1: Using Science to Argue Against the Existence of God
1.Propose that living beings are poorly designed. The argument from poor design states that if God is perfect, why did he create us and many other living creatures so poorly? For instance, we are vulnerable to many diseases, our bones break easily, and with age our bodies and minds break down. You could also mention our poorly-made spines, inflexible knees, and pelvic bones that make childbirth difficult and painful for women. Together, this biological evidence indicates that God does not exist (or that he did not create us well, in which case, there is no reason to worship him).
- Believers might counter this argument by stating that if God is perfect, then he created us as well as could possibly be expected. They might also argue that what we see as imperfections actually have a purpose in the larger workings of God's design. Point out the logical fallacy in this right away. We can't live our lives hoping that one day an explanation for why our eyes or shoulders were designed so poorly will arise. Reference the philosopher Voltaire, who wrote a novel about people looking for meaning after a devastating earthquake hit Paris. We are pattern-seeking animals, so naturally we look and hope for patterns where none can be found.
- Some might point out that God originally created humans in their perfect form, but after humanity sinned against God, God's original creation became corrupt and wrought with sin, and death and entropy entered the world as a result. Be aware of this rebuttal when using the flawed-design argument.
2.Show the history of replacing supernatural with natural explanations. The “God of the Gaps” argument is common when people argue that God exists. It argues that while modern science can explain many things, it cannot explain others. You can refute this by saying that the things we do not understand are decreasing every year, and that while natural explanations have replaced theistic explanations, supernatural or theistic explanations never replace scientific ones.
- For instance, you might cite the example of evolution as one area where science has revised previous God-centric explanations for the variety of species in our world.
- Argue that religion has often been used to explain the unexplainable. The Greeks used Poseidon to explain how earthquakes happen, which we now know is due to the movement of tectonic plates to relieve pressure.
3.Demonstrate the inaccuracy of creationism. If the existence of the world can be explained purely in scientific terms, then it is unnecessary to say that God brought the world into being. According to the principle of
Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is generally the best. Creationism is the belief that God created the world, usually within a relatively recent time-frame like 5,000-6,000 years ago. Draw on the wealth of reasonable evidence that disproves this, such as evolutionary data, fossils, radiocarbon dating, and ice cores to argue that creationism is false and that belief in God is unnecessary.
[1] - For instance, you might say, “We find rocks all the time that are dated to be millions or even billions of years old. Doesn't this conflict with the belief that the universe was recently created by God?”
- Some might argue that the earth only appears to be old because Noah's Flood dramatically changed the climate and geology of the earth. However, this fails to explain the millions of craters on the moon and the supernovas in outer space.
Comments