I read this from a book called The Philosophy Gym - 25 Short Adventures In Thinking by Stephen Law which I feel is very interesting. Hereby pen it down to see if anybody has anything to say. (Though I doubt anybody who will have anything to say will get to read this.)
Lets begin: Does God exist?
For: The Design Argument (Telelogical Argument) by William Parley (1743-1805)
While walking on a beach, you discover a watch lying on the sand. How did it get there? It's unlikely that the watch came into existence without a designer.
Now consider a human eye. The eye is far more complex than any watch. Isn't it likely that the eye has a designer too? Since the design and production of the eye is quite beyond us, its designer must therefore be God, who's far more intelligent and powerful.
Against: Natural Selection by Charles Dawin
Organisms contain within their cells DNA. When they reproduce, their DNA is copied and pass on. However, through chance, there may be some slight changes in the DNA passed down - mutation. These mutations may either help of hinder the organism's chance of surviving. Those who survived will pass on their 'successful' mutated genes to their offsprings. Gradually a species will evolve and adapt to their environment.
Natural selection explains how the eye came about. It's the result of evolution over millions of years to help the organism survive its environment. It doesn't need a designer, ie God.
DNA must come from somewhere, right?
DNA is a comparatively simple mechanism. It's possible for DNA to come into existence spontaneously. (It has been proven in the lab.)
For: The Design of Natural Law
The world is governed by natural laws. There are many different ways in which thesee laws might have been set. Only a very very very tiny percentage allows for a stable universe capable of producing and sustaining concious beings like ourselves. Therefore, it's highly plausible that this is purposely designed by someone so as to yield this highly improbable result, and that someone is God.
Against: Lottery Fallacy
You have a 1 in 10000 chance to win in 4D. You bought the number 4444. Yet still you win. It's highly unlikely, yet there's no reason to think the 4D is rigged in you favour, just like there's no reason to think someone purposely designed the universe such that we can be produce and sustain. You (we) are just lucky! To think otherwise is to commit the Lottery Fallacy
Against: The Problem of Evil (This is interesting!)
Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept that the universe is designed by some sort of intelligent creator, the evidence points very strongly away from that creator being God.
God is supposed by Jews, Christians and Muslims to have 3 characteristics: Omniscience (He is all knowing), Omnipotence (He is all-powerful) and Supreme Benevolence. But it seems impossible to reconcile the existence of such a being with the fact that there's a great deal of suffering in this world.
God is supreme benevolence - He can't want us to suffer.
God is omnisciencient - He knows we are suffering.
God is omnipotent - He can prevent us from suffering.
But... Why didn't he?
Either He is not all-powerful - He can't make a better universe.
Or He is not all-knowing - He don't know we are suffering.
Or He is not all-good - He knows, but He didn't much care.
(If so, then why are we worshipping Him?)
But God, if He exists, has all these characteristics.. Therefore God does not exist.
The 3 most common defenses are:
For: God Punishment
We have sinned, so God punish us.
Counter:
What about new-borns that contacted diseases such as HIV?? What have they done?
For: God Made Us Free
Our suffering is not God's fault, but ours. God gives us free will. We act in ways that causes our sufferings.
Counter:
What about natural disasters? What did we do to cause, say, the volcano to erupt, or the ground to shake???
For: Suffering Makes Us Virtuous
God wants us to suffer so as to make us better people.
Counter:
Since He is omnipotent, why didn't he make us 'better people' in the first place. Even if it's unavoidable, why some people suffer more than others?
Against: Ockham's Razor - William of Ockham (1285-1349)
Suppose there's no more evidence for God's existence than there was against (This is clearly not the case - there's pretty good evidence that He doesn't exist.). What would it be rational to believe? Most would say suspend judgement, but the correct answer is:
Believe God doesn't exist.
Why?
Ockham Razor - when presented with 2 equally well supported hypotheses, choose the simpler one.
Example
2 hypotheses:
A. There are invisible, intangible, immaterial faries flying all around you.
B. There are no invisible, intangible faries flying all around you.
Everything I obseved fits the 2 hypotheses very well - I would observe everything normally in both hypotheses. Should I suspend judgement?? Of course not! The rational thing to believe is that there's no faries because that's the simpler hypothesis. Why introduce unnecessary faries??
The same applies to God.
***********
Even if the book say it's logical to believe that God doesn't exist, I personally would suspend judgement. Why? There's no other better explainations on how the universe is created. (Hmmm... maybe I'll write something on this topic.) However the creator I believe in (IF I believe) definitely don't have the 3 qualities mention above. That's why I don't believe in Chistianity. Period.
Now, anybody has better arguments for the existence of God?
No comments:
Post a Comment