`PaWz said:
I wish I was in philosophy class.
Can you tell me a few of the holes you found? I'm just curious.
Here is a section from the paper I wrote. In my opinion dawkins only looks at things one sided.
Here it is a section from my paper:
The question of God's existance has had an enormous impact on huiman beings thougout history. Religions were founded, wars were fought , and even court cases were held to answer such an profound question. Is there a higher intelligent power that created everything out of nothing in a perfect order? Or is the concept of God nothing more than a outdated theory used by ancient religions that has now been disproven by virtue of modern science? This question alone has left numerous philospophers throughout history to ponder and answer the reality of God's estistence.
This paper will discuss arguments both for and against God's esistence from two philosophers coming from different backrounds. Philosophers Blaise Pascal, and Richard Dawkins views will be presented on this topic. I will then present my own views on this subject which have been influenced by St Thomas Aquinas. I will show that belief in God is reasonable and logical. I will present a slight modification of one of Thomas five arguments for God, the need for a first cause. In addition I will also look to miracles backed up by science as fingerprint evidence and critique Dawkins on his Athiestic evolutionary proofs against Intelligent design..................
Dawkins
Richard Dawkins is a philospher who subscribes to Darwins Athiestic evolutionary theory. In his work entitled "The Blind Watchmaker", Dawkins sets out to disprove the theory of Intelligent design which is utilized by theist to explain the creation of the universe. To understand what Dawkins is trying to disprove one must understand the theory of Intelligent design. The theory of intelligent design is the belief that God(a intelligent higher life form) created the universe and everything in it. A typical argument used to explain intelligent design
might be stated as follows. A). If you found a watch in the middle of a desert you would see the complexity of the watch and not just assume that it formed thier from natural chance or by some scientific law alone, rather you would assume that it had a intelligent maker such as Swatch or Gucci. B) Human beings are far more complex than watches. C) Therefore human beings most likely would have a intelligent designer
Dawkins, who has great respect for the theist argument and its defenders, saw a practicle problem with intelligent design . Utilizing Darwins evolutionary theory of natural selection, Dawkins began to realize that intelligent design theory is not necessary to explain the complexity of the human Body or the order in the universe. Science itself can explain these things without bringing in the Superstitious concept of a God. A good example that Dawkins used is the Pebbly Beach. If you looked at a pebbly beach for example you will notice that the larger pebbles seem to be sorted, arragned and selected in different areas than the smaller pebbles. Some primitive religions might believe that Gods or a God arranged these there. They may even make up a myth to explain them, but in reality nothing supernatural has happened at all. No hand of God ever caused theses pebbles to be arranged that way. Rather, what has happened is a purely natural and scientific thing that was caused by the forces of physics. Each pebble of each different size and weight will react to the force of the waves of water in a different way. The bigger pebbles will react differently than the smaller pebbles to the waves and therefore will end up in different places on the beach. This is a simple concept scientifically proven without ever having to rely on the suppressive trappings of religious folklore about a higher being.
Myself
I will argue in favour of the exisitence of God. Many atheist naturally believe that all Theist rely on "Sola Fide" or faith alone to justify thier belief in God. While that may be true for fundamentalist of various denominations, this does not hold for certain sects of theist like Catholics. St Thomas Aquinas, a theologian, scripture scholar, and Philosopher in the middle ages argued that we can know God from reason and logic apart from divine revelation. This is still the teaching of Catholic theology as the Catechsim or offcial teaching of the churchs shows ; "The Church holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."
Aquinas used five arguments for the existence of God through reason. I will use only one of his arguments wich I believe is the strongest in refuting athiesic theory. This is the "Need for a first cause" . Everything we know of in the entire material universe is understood or explained by a previous cause. In other words everything made up of matter in our known existence came from a prior cause. I did not cause myself to be or come into exisitence, my parents caused that. My parents did not come into exsitence by themselves, thier parents(my grandparents) caused them to be and so on and so forth. Every Material object in the universe is a product of a long chain of causes. Nothing causes itself to be. Some might argue that the world was caused by the Big bang theory so the theory of God is not needed. There is no problem for a theist to admit that the Big bang theory is possible. However, this does not destroy the probability that God created the universe.
After all what caused the big bang? Some may argue that the big bang was caused by a explosion of gasses and rock. But, if Matter itself, such as rock and gasses cannot cuase themselves to be then who caused them. Why does matter(Rock and gasses) exist at all? Where did they come from? A thiest can believe that God created the universe by the big bang. But who created the matter to make the big bang anyway. It would logically follow that some power outside the material universe created matter. That power must be of a spiritual nature becuase it is outside of the material universe. And that power must be infinite to be able to create something out of absolutly nothing. We are finite creatures, we can create things such as foods and medicines using other things, but we cannot create something out of nothing. No one starts with absolutly nothing and creates a car. You have to have prior material such as metal, plastic etc. Logically to able to make matter out of nothing and to be able to create a extremely complex system like the material universe also shows a sign of intelligence, far more than we have. What do you call something that is Spiritual, intelligent, infinite and causes things to be? We Call it God.
Some may ask "who created God"? The answer is no one created God. God always existed. He is the First cause of everything. Think of it in two ways. You cannot have a series of causes without arrving at a first cause. For example you cannot have a infinitely tall building without a bottom floor. Also remember that everything we know in the "material" universe has a prior cause. God is spiritual not material so he does not need a prior cause. Dawkins tried to disprove intellignet design by saying that creation could be explained by natural selection. Dawkins is right in saying that creation can be explained by natural selection. However, Dawkins is seriously mistaken if he thinks that natural blind selction in any way disproves God's exsitence.
Why couldn't God create the universe using natural blind selection? This the fatal flaw in Dawkins argument. Dawkins assumes blindly that just becuase something can be shown to evolve naturally or scientifically that it disproves the theory of God. But how could science or evolution disprove the theory of God if we know it is only scientifically reasonable and logical to believe in a First cause that is Spiritual, intelligent, and infinite? The answer is simple, the two do not contradict each other at all. If something forms scientfically naturally like pattrerns of pebbles how can we assume that God didn't just form them using natural means. God would be the primary cause and natural selection and evolution would be the secondary cause. God would create things using Natural selction and evolution. It would be like Michealangelo creating a statue. Michaelangeloo is the primary cause of that statue but he uses a chizel to carve it. The chizel would be a secondary cause. The chizel created the statue but it was untimatly created and formed by Michealangelo, the primary cause. Dawkins fallacy is that he only looks to the chizel to explain the statue, he doesn't even consider the artist behind the chizel. What is more logical to look at simple beatiful statue and say a mere chizel created that, or to look at it and say a great artist made that. IN the same way what is more logical and reasonable, looking at the complexity of the universe and its creation(Which is far more beautiful and profound than a statue) and believing that a infinite, intelligent being created it using natural selection, or looking at it and only explaining it in a mere scientific way? Dawkins cannot disprove that God is not behind natural blind selection. Dawkins mere scientific answer does not answer the bigger question of a need for a First cause. Therefore Dawkins theory is a copout. It is not a "either or" question? Either God or nature laws created the unverse. Rather, it is a "both and" situation. God created the unverse using natural laws and evolution.
Well that was it. You may dissagree but that is how I view it. I hope that helps.
Most people, both atheists and theists alike, don't think of religion as akin to art. They think of religion as akin to science. (And as a substitute for science, it is irrational by comparison.) Most (not all) of the people I know who think of religion as akin to art are UUs. 
