argument about god existence
Atheistic reasoning often suggests that “science explains things without the need for God.” But such a suggestion is what is known in philosophical terms as a “category error.” Science describes things in terms of natural laws, but does not explain where natural laws come from or how they are enforced.
Atheistic reasoning often cites pure chance or luck as an alternative explanation to God for such phenomena as the origin of life and the origin of our universe.
Sure—the atheist argument goes—the probability of such things occurring naturally is very low…but with enough time, and even a slight probability, what is there to prevent virtually anything from happening?! But this atheist reasoning makes some very grave oversights. First of all, bare probability and large amounts of time, alone, cannot accomplish anything, ever. Period.
Atheism is rooted in the worldview known as naturalism (which says that there is no reality outside of the natural world). But naturalism leaves us no reason to think that we can rely on our reason. By dismissing God, naturalists have stripped away any reason to think that human reason can lead to truth. We should therefore dismiss naturalism as having no more value than the empty “convictions of a monkey’s mind” (in the words of Charles Darwin).
According to atheist reasoning, God is just an imaginary entity used to fill in gaps in current scientific understanding. Eventually (argue atheists), all of these gaps will be filled with scientific explanations that cite natural mechanisms…and there will be no more gaps in which to put God. But this reasoning fails to address the question of WHERE NATURAL MECHANISMS COME FROM, and therefore confuses science with ontology (the branch of philosophy which addresses the nature of being, existence, or reality).
Atheists have been very successful in duping the general public into believing that the question of God’s existence amounts to a debate between science and religion. But the God debate is a conflict of religion versus religion, or philosophy versus philosophy…not of science versus religion. “The so called warfare between science and religion,” writes the eminent historian Jacques Barzun, should actually “be seen as the warfare between two philosophies and perhaps two faiths.”
When one delves into the question of how conscious beings such as ourselves could emerge from non-conscious matter through natural processes (as atheism suggests), it becomes apparent that atheism relies much more on faith than does theism. Further, it becomes apparent that atheism is utterly illogical.