The chosen argument for discussion in this paper is on the existence of God. My stance is that God does not exist as will be discussed below.
Premise 1: God exists only if the universe contains adequate evidence to prove the existence of God and disprove of any scientific contradictions.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Premise 2: The universe does not display sufficient proof of the existence of God than the processes evidenced in science.
Conclusion: God does not exist.
Justification for Premise 1: I believe that the explanation for the existence of God should have its basis of evidence that leaves no doubt about such claims. If the universe does not display the extent to which God influences events and nature, then God does not exist. For example, the universe would not be the same way it is if a God was controlling it. The suffering, the diseases and the various forms of trouble in the world would be non-existent as God would not create such evil. Moreover, in the presence of a God, the universe would be in a perfect state as the God would address all the evil and troubles in the world. Similarly, if God cannot remove the constant problems in the universe, then a belief in the existence of a God is a fallacy. Furthermore, if God cannot eliminate all problems at the same time, then a conviction in his omnipotence is false.
Justification for Premise 2:
Etzioni, A. (2014). Common Good . John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Maritain, J. (2015). Approaches to God . Paulist Press.
McGrath, A. E. (2014). Dawkins' God . Wiley.
Thurow, J. C. (2013). Does cognitive science show belief in God to be irrational? The epistemic consequences of the cognitive science of religion. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion , 74 (1), 77-98.
The universe does not display adequate proof of the existence of God than the explanations and evidence presented by scientists for each and every process. A belief in a God would hold water if evidence to eliminate all the scientific contradictions existed. The reason for this stand is that belief is justified only as long as it has credible evidence to support the claims postulated. For instance, in addressing the endless evil in today’s world, the religious books try to theoretically explain the reasons behind the current state of the world. However, the religious books lack concrete and tangible evidence but only present a belief system without adequate physical backing.On the other hand, science holds that if God exists then he would know the ways of preventing, would be able to, and would be willing to prevent human and other forms of suffering. However, scientific evidence shows suffering to exist since time began and is an integral part of the world. If anything, scientists try to address ways of overcoming the suffering brought by diseases, something that God would address if present. Thus, God is non-existent since suffering is dealt with by human scientists and that which they cannot handle remains to torment the world.
One might hold an objection against my claim that God does not exist. They may hold opinions that God exists as depicted in all creation. The reason might be that the numerous physical features and natural phenomena that science cannot explain did not just happen. There must have been a supernatural creator, a God, who did all the work of creation. Furthermore, they may hold that God does more than just solving problems but instead keeps the world in existence. For example, a question about the location of the foundations of the universe and how they are maintained to preserve the world from falling apart. Scientific evidence shows that the earth rotates around its axis yet does not topple. Therefore, supposing that God made and kept the universe, then the foundations of the earth are in the hands of the omnipotent. Now, if God holds the bases of the world, then the reason why the earth remains stable can only be based on such ground.
In response to this objection, I agree that science does not explain some mysteries such as life but explains the elements which made it. Moreover, with continued research, a strong possibility of unveiling the mystery of life remains. Similarly, I agree that the ability to remain stable on the earth surface given its oblate spheroid shape is a mystery. However, with a further look into such arguments, science holds that the effects of the centripetal and the centrifugal forces keep the earth stable. Therefore, it is not a supernatural being who holds the earth in place but rather, natural processes and forces maintain the earth as it is today. Furthermore, the effects of the same scientific processes result in the creation of features. For example, volcanicity results in the formation of volcanic mountains. Even if the argument goes further to state that the God predetermined the locations of seas and oceans, then such features should be perfect. Nonetheless, the same elements undergo transformations and chaos that scientists have managed to predict. For instance, tsunamis and tornadoes are predicted by scientists with a consideration of the forces at play. The ability to correctly predict the occurrence of natural disasters by scientists further prove that a God is not in charge of the features, but nature makes itself. Even with this broader justification, the existence of God will still not be justified since control over the universe seems to be in the hands of scientific processes.