In Time Magazine's latest cover story, Richard Dawkins represents the "new" atheists in a debate about the existence of God. He is a "new" atheist because he is a leader in a wave of new books supporting atheism, which are more determined than ever to convince everyone else that there is no God. The problem is that, at least in the Time article, there are no new arguments. Dawkins seems to grasp for any possible explanation for the complex designs in the universe other than God, no matter how far fetched. Dawkins offers two such explanations: "Some unified theory will eventually show..." and "Maybe the universe we are in is one of a very large number of universes (p.53)."
Let's face it, God is by far the most logical and probable explanation for the existence of the universe. Even Dawkins admits there are only two alternatives. The first is a unified theory, which no one is close to figuring out and even Stephen Hawking has given up hope of discovering. The other is the multi-universe idea, for which there is absolutely no evidence. Even if there was a unified theory or multiple universes, the evidence for God is not diminished, for where did the multiple universes or a fine-tuned unified theory come from? Such things would also display evidence of fine-tuned designing that are clearly best explained by God.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I am very excited about tis site. Please keep it up! God Bless
Hello David,
Here's my two bits on this intractable debate. Hope you and others can appreciate my efforts to provide a key to a true solution for humanity's seemingly never-ending cycle of struggle and despair.
Analyzing the Creator Debate
Did you ever consider that atheism arose because certain people saw that religious characterizations about the nature of an omnipotent "God" were seriously flawed and then concluded that religion and the Creator were the same things? This is the exact same conclusion at the base of religious beliefs; namely that the Creator and religion are inseparable. Consequently, both atheists and religious followers are arguing over a flawed assumption without considering that other possibilities negate the common core conclusion of both groups. These arguments are actually over religion and whether it represents a reliable model of reality. The answer to this question is of course not. Religion is not only flawed, it is purposely deceptive! Though atheists are certainly sincere in their conclusions, the fact remains that they and religious followers are locked in a debate that cannot be won by either side because both base their positions upon whether the same flawed premise is the truth. In order for this debate to conclude with a truthful answer, a greater level of discernment is required.
One apt clarifying question is, if someone tells lies about you, does that negate you or make you a liar or a lie? Certainly, the image cast about you would be a false one, but that is their image, not the real you. Consequently, faulty religious assertions about the Creator of this universe do not negate the existence of a Creator. Considering the possibility that this universe is not by chance leaves the door open to how it arose, which leads us to seek what could have created and maintained it. Since neither religion nor science has yet adequately answered this question, it is safe to conclude that those who argue about the Creator based on either are most certainly wrong about one or more aspects. Therefore, another point of view and additional knowledge are required.
Read More...
Peace...
Post a Comment