Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Those that claim science disproves God usually start from a scientifically valid claim that "there is no evidence for God." They then apply Occam's razor to simplify this to "the most natural reason for there being no evidence of God is that God does not exist." However, the application of Occam's razor is not scientific.
Concerning chance vs design, This only addresses the most literal interpretation of the Judaic Christian biblical creation story. I don't think that there is no room for a god that works through chance, and natural selection, perhaps causing certain outcomes to be much more likely than one would naturally assume.
"If God does not exist, anything is permissible" was uttered by Ivan in 'Brothers Karamazov'. Dostoyevsky is a controversial author, and he saw western Europe as a civilization of nihilism, atheism and spiritual death (Oswald Spengler largely agreed with this, and he discusses Dostoyevsky quite a lot in his masterpiece 'Decline of the West'), and Ivan Karamazov is a typical European intellectual.
The moral man who seeks a support point in virtue must admit the existence of a Being as fair as He is supreme. So God is necessary to the world in every way, and we can say together with the author of the Epistle to the scribbler of a vulgar book on the Three Impostors, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him"."
Hence, if God is omnipresent, how is it possible that the subject that is questioning the existence of God is not a god, and ergo there are no gods. This is my idea about this quote. An analogy here can also be drawn from the Epicurean's paradox , the first logical refutation of the existence of God, wherein he uses one premise as "God is ...
As no one amongst us simple members of the genus homo, know in any fashion, the Mind of God, there is no real answer to these ultimate questions; however, as man has uncovered more and more of the imbedded elements of universal physics and cosmology, what little man has learned is that the ultimate constituents of our Universe, and the means ...
P1: To know absolutely that there is no God one must have infinite knowledge. P2: But to have infinite knowledge one would have to be God. P3: It is impossible to be God and an atheist at the same time. C: Atheists cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Comments:
There's no possible escape, and nothing you do or believe will make a difference. Given that, you might as well believe there is a good God waiting for you to reach out to them. Your starting belief is already the worst case scenario, so there's no risk in believing in a better one.
As God transcends us and our knowledge, we cannot know. If we want something like good reasons for how He behaves, we ask for something transcending the very sphere of our understanding. Therefore, only faith could help. This is nothing different from the mantra "God moves in mysterious ways." If there is no faith, there's no good reason. Full ...
However, the idea that God is both existent and nonexistent, or beyond these, or something else as such, is not unknown as a serious position, e.g. in Eriugena we find that "[there] is an attempt to show that nature is a dialectical coming together of being and non-being. Creation is normally understood as coming into being from non-being.