Can we prove or disprove God's existence?

I encourage any student of religion to question the idea that the arguments for and against the existence of God can prove (or disprove) God's existence. My basic reasoning for this is as follows: If any of the arguments for God's existence worked as a conclusive proof of God's existence, then (logically) it would provide a sound reason for believing God existed and as such there would be no denying God's existence. In short, everyone would be theists. Likewise, if any of the arguments against God's existence worked to conclusively disprove God's existence, then (logically) no-one would believe God existed and (in theory) everyone would be atheists. However, the fact that the matter of God's existence is still widely debated, and that we have people all around the world who believe in God's existence and do not believe God exists, suggests the issue is far from resolved. As such, we must reject the simplistic notion that any of the arguments (either for or against God's existence) are the final word on the matter.

Rodin's "The Thinker"
(Copyright Stephen A Richards)

In light of this, it's important to approach the question of God's existence with a degree of humility. The issue has been hotly debated, and often by the finest minds, throughout much of human existence. Thus to think we can easily prove or disprove the question of God's existence beyond all doubt is rather naive.

So why do people regularly engage with others over the issue of God's existence in a simplistic and knee-jerk fashion? I would suggest that many find it hard to see anything positive in another person's point-of-view for fear that in doing so it would undermine their own beliefs. For example, atheists would be afraid that if they see any value in an argument for God's existence, that they would then have to start believing in God; with theists worrying that conceding any ground to atheists would undermine their belief in God. So quickly dismissing another person's belief is the easier option, and simply a matter of self-preservation.

The author walking on ice
(Copyright Stephen A Richards)

Yet this is a very oversimplified view of who we are and the beliefs we hold. We do not change our fundamental beliefs about things on a whim. Anytime our beliefs do radically change, this tends to happen over a period of time. If a theist or atheist is going to change their belief in God this will have taken place after many months, or even years of thinking and reflection.

Religious Studies/Philosophy of Religion is first and foremost an academic subject. It is not an attempt to convert students to either atheism or theism. Thus in order to do well in the subject, one must be prepared to engage critically, yet also respectfully, with other people's beliefs and opinions. At the end of the day, no-one has all the answers. We are all born into a particular family, society, and place in the world which has a profound influence on who we are, what we think of other people and the way we experience the world. The value in taking a subject like Religious Studies/Philosophy of Religion is that it gives us a chance to experience the world as other's do, and to critically reflect on our own place and beliefs in the grand scheme of things.

Writing better essays (Part 2)

When undertaking any journey it’s a good idea to have some idea of where we want to go. When writing essays a plan is also a useful tool to have with which to guide the content of our work.

In "Writing better essays (Part 1)" we talked about this essay question:

• What are the advantages of Utilitarianism? Identify the problems of Utilitarianism. (21 marks)
• To what extent do these problems make Utilitarianism unacceptable? (9 marks)

For the whole question we have been allotted 45 minutes to answer it. Let’s consider the first part and take a minute to construct a plan to help us answer it:

“What are the ADVANTAGES of Utilitarianism?”

1. People seem naturally inclined towards doing those things that will bring pleasurable consequences. Bentham’s quote, “Nature has placed mankind under the government of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure... they govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think” can be used to support this. Utilitarianism seems to be logically the way we naturally think about the notion of right or wrong
2. It offers observable and measurable outcomes. We can see people either gaining pleasure from their actions, or pain. Some might say this provides an objective basis for morality
3. It provides a good foundation for lawmaking. Both Bentham and Mill believed we should seek to create laws which maximise the wellbeing of the most people in society.
4. Focussing on maximising pleasurable outcomes means we can expand this notion to include non-human species. Bentham quote, “I don't care whether animals are capable of thinking; all I care about is that they are capable of suffering!” This idea has been widely explored in the writings of Peter Singer, whose work has been influential in the animal rights movement.

To sketch out a quick plan such as this takes about a minute. In this video above you will also see I used a combination of words and pictures to help set out and organise my ideas. For more on this technique see Using a mind map to organise study notes.

So having briefly sketched out a plan for our answer, let’s begin writing:

“I am going to discuss four advantages of Utilitarianism.”

• This very brief introduction shows I have thought about the question and have also chosen to discuss the following examples. Obvious, yes; but a good statement of intent.

“The first advantage of Utilitarianism is that it appears to be the way we naturally make decisions about right or wrong. People are naturally inclined towards doing those things which lead to pleasurable consequences, and seek to avoid those things which do not. They also attribute notions of right and wrong to these consequences accordingly; with pleasurable outcomes being good, and vice versa. As Jeremy Bentham famously stated, “Nature has placed mankind under the government of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure... they govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think.”

• Without actually describing what Utilitarianism is (which is not was the question was asking me to do anyway), I have shown I have a clear understanding of what Utilitarianism is, have referenced a key thinker Bentham, and also used a quotation to reinforce my point, all of which will gain me good marks.

“Secondly, it provides an objective basis for moral decision-making. If we say that maximising pleasurable outcomes is Good, and as a result of doing x it leads to pleasurable outcomes, then we might say that doing x is a good thing to do.”

• Here I am referring to the problem of establishing an objective basis of morality, and in doing so have used technical terms in an informed and meaningful manner. This shows I am informed and have thought about my subject.

“Thirdly, it provides a sound basis for lawmaking. Bentham and Mill both agreed that laws should be created to maximise the well-being of most people in a society. Laws should not be created to serve the interests of just the wealthy or nobility for example, but for the good of all (or as many people as possible).”

• Here is more evidence of my wider understanding of the application of Utilitarianism. This again is more evidence of my deep understanding of the subject and would gain high marks.

“Finally, in grounding morality in the notion of maximising pleasurable outcomes we can begin to consider how our actions affect non-human species. Rather than having to address the complicated question of whether animals have “rights”, we can focus instead on how our actions may or may not cause animals to suffer. As Bentham argued, “I don't care whether animals are capable of thinking; all I care about is that they are capable of suffering!”. If we consider any act of causing deliberate suffering to be wrong, then this could start to raise questions about our treatment of animals and whether certain testing and farming practices are morally wrong.”

• In this final section I have expanded my knowledge and application of Utilitarianism. If time permits I could make reference to Peter Singer, whose work on animal rights has been greatly influenced by Utilitarianism.

In closing let’s review the three main areas of good essay technique:

• It’s important that our writing is logical and coherent
• It’s important that we are informed and thoughtful in our work. Our writing should show evidence of carefully building and supporting the ideas we discuss
• It’s also important we do not simply drop ideas onto the page without some prior attempt to organise them. Successfully doing this requires a plan, but also study and revision beforehand.

Have you also seen "Writing Better Essays (Part 1)"?

Writing better essays (Part 1)

On both a personal and social level, it is important we engage in an informed and thoughtful manner with other people. We also need to do this when it comes to writing essays.

What do we mean when we say we should engage in an “informed and thoughtful manner”?

• To be “Informed” means to have taken time to learn about and understand someone’s beliefs and opinions.
• To be “Thoughtful” means to have taken time to reflect on other people’s beliefs and opinions, as well as our own.

A good essay will show evidence of the writer being both informed and thoughtful.

Writing good essays is hard, but it is a skill which can be learned.

The most important thing when starting to write an essay is to understand what we are being asked to write about. For example, here is a sample essay question from an Advanced Religious Studies exam:

• “What are the advantages of Utilitarianism? Identify the problems of Utilitarianism.” (21)
• “To what extent do these problems make Utilitarianism unacceptable?” (9)

Look at the question carefully. What is the candidate being asked to write about? The question is not asking the candidate to list everything they know about Utilitarianism. It is asking them to first discuss the advantages of Utilitarianism, then to discuss the problems of Utilitarianism, and finally to evaluate it as an acceptable moral theory. The question is not asking the candidate to describe what Utilitarianism is. It is assumed they will already know this, and in fact evidence of their understanding will naturally be shown in the answers they give.

This brings us to second thing we need to do when writing an essay, and that is to be prepared.

Preparing to write an essay begins with study and revision.

We cannot adequately write about a subject without having the proper information about it, and to do this unavoidably takes time. Think of study and revision like getting to know someone. We cannot say we truly “know” someone after meeting them for just a few minutes. In the same way, we cannot adequately write about a subject unless we have taken time to “get-to-know” it beforehand.

The more time we spend with anything, the more we will get to know it and understand it. It’s that simple!

So writing a good essay shows we know our subject. It also shows we have thought about the things we have learned, and will also give us a chance to demonstrate our ability to engage thoughtfully with the subject, from different points of view.

Remember Bertrand Russell’s table analogy? Russell said that various people looking at a table will all have different experiences of it. Likewise, when we write an essay we are essentially acting as a narrator for different people’s experiences, beliefs and opinions; our own also included.

Now logically, when having to engage with a variety of beliefs and opinions there are going to be some we do not agree with, but that’s okay. The main purpose of an essay is to show we’re informed about a subject. For example, it’s okay for an atheist to talk about why some people believe in God without actually having to feel they need to believe in God in order to do this. If their essay requires them to explain the reasons why people have this belief, then that's all they need to do.

In many ways writing an essay is also like being the conductor of an orchestra; bringing together a variety of different sounds in order to make a harmonic whole. And whilst the conductor will no doubt have a favourite instrument, they will allow each one to be played on their own terms for the sake of bringing the whole composition to life.

Finally, let’s talk about the content of an essay.

Unless you are writing an answer to examination question (where time is the essence), it is good form to start your essay with an Introduction where you talk about your intention for writing the essay (“In this essay I will be…”). Obviously to be able to write a good introduction requires prior knowledge of what you are going to be talking about, which suggests we have a plan for the essay prior to writing it.

Your essay will consist of several paragraphs in which you demonstrate knowledge of the subject from a variety of perspectives. You will also use quotations to do this.

There will be a paragraph or two near the end where you discuss your own informed opinions.

Finally there will be a conclusion where you restate the main argument you made in relation to the question.

Writing Better Essays (Part 2)

An Introduction to Logic and Reasoning Skills (Part 2)

There are over 7 billion people in the world, and with each person on the planet comes a unique perspective on the nature of things.

People are born into different families, different countries and different cultures, all of which shape the way each of us perceive the world.

We are also different from each other in many other ways. Male and female; fair-skinned and black; straight, gay, transgender; disabled, blind, colour-blind. So many things combine to make us very different from each other.

When it comes to thinking about each other’s beliefs and opinions, these too are many and varied. What we think about the nature of the world, reality, purpose of life, meaning of things, morality, religion, and God even, our beliefs are not necessarily going to be the same as what other people think. When we consider the multitude of influences that go into making us who we are, it is easy to see why this is the case.

So with this in mind our starting-point for evaluating another person’s beliefs and opinions must surely be that of asking questions. For example:

• Why do they believe that?
• When did they acquire these beliefs?
• What has led them to continue having these beliefs?
• How are my beliefs different to theirs?
• Where might we agree on this issue?

And so on…

Of course, if we all have our own unique beliefs and opinions then how do we decide which of them are reliable or true, if any?

In his book “The Problem of Philosophy”, the Philosopher Bertrand Russell illustrated this point in the following manner:

“To make our difficulties plain, let us concentrate attention on the table. To the eye it is oblong, brown and shiny, to the touch it is smooth and cool and hard; when I tap it, it gives out a wooden sound… but as soon as we try to be more precise our troubles begin. Although I believe that the table is 'really' of the same colour all over, the parts that reflect the light look much brighter than the other parts, and some parts look white because of reflected light. I know that, if I move, the parts that reflect the light will be different, so that the apparent distribution of colours on the table will change. It follows that if several people are looking at the table at the same moment, no two of them will see exactly the same distribution of colours, because no two can see it from exactly the same point of view… The same thing applies to texture… and shape.” [1]

So if people are having different experiences of the table at the same time, whose experience is the most valid or true?

Let’s illustrate this point another way using a well-known Indian parable:

In a village three blind men were touching an elephant. They were asked to describe what they were feeling. The first blind man, holding the elephant's leg, said he was touching the trunk a great tree. The second blind man, holding the elephant's tail said he was holding a rope. The third blind man, touching the elephant’s side, said he was standing in front of a great wall. Each blind man was convinced he was right and others were wrong, even though they were all touching the same elephant.

The table and elephant analogies suggest there is no such thing as Absolute Truth; that in fact all truth is relative to the individual and many philosophers will accept that this when it comes to social, moral and religious truth-claims. However, this is not to say we are now living in a world devoid of any truth or sense of certainty.

For instance, we can’t drive up to a gas station and decide to fill up our vehicle’s fuel tank with milk. Everyone at the gas station would agree that in order to make their vehicle work they need to put gas, or petrol in it. A combustion engine will not run on milk. Even if someone insists it does, they will soon come to realise they are wrong, especially when they attempt to start their car and drive off. So although someone next to me may have been born in a different country, have a different skin colour, is the opposite gender to me, and different in all manner of other ways, both of us would agree that we need to put gas into our vehicle in order to continue driving it.

One final point. Sometimes a disagreement between two people is simply about the meaning of the words we use. For instance, consider the person who believes the earth is flat versus the one who believe it is not. Both would say that the earth is “Round”, but both would also clearly mean different things by this.

[1] Taken from chapter 1, “Appearance and Reality”.

An Introduction to Logic and Reasoning Skills (Part 1)

When discussing and evaluating issues it is important to be able to present our opinions in a logical and reasonable manner. 

For example, I am sure you have witnessed this type of exchange in the comments section on YouTube: 

• Person #1: I know the earth is flat but Illuminati’s created the earth round to make people not believe in God
• Person #2: Haha you idiot
• Person #1: Insult is the first proof that someone knows he lost ... He will insult you instead of understanding why
• Person #2: Knows I lost huh. Again, you are a moron
• Person #1: I won’t insult someone that only wants to insult and not look for the truth ... You’d rather trust what others say and not your own self and for that I will block you, but I hope one day you’ll repent for your sins
• Person #2: Go kill yourself

(Actual comments posted on a video “Flat Earth theory & Evidence!?”)

Clearly there are no logic or reasoning skills being demonstrated here. Opinions are stated without qualification, and for no good reason insults traded. No attempt has been made to explain or examine anyone’s opinion, belief or idea.

Depressingly, this sort of behaviour is very common on social media; but there is another way.

In order to avoid unnecessary conflict, and simply as a matter of basic respect, we should engage thoughtfully, critically and logically with the variety of different viewpoints people hold. What might this look like? 

Well, let’s consider the following statement: “God exists because the Bible says so.” For those who believe the Bible is God’s written Word, this obviously justifies God’s existence. If the Bible says there is a God, then it must be true.

Also, they might say if there is no God then where did the Bible come from and why was it written? For them the very existence of the Bible is evidence for God’s existence.

Of course, an atheist would naturally disagree! Atheists do not believe God exists and many argue that the Bible is simply a human creation. As such the Bible cannot be used to support the claim that God exists.

Yet for all that atheists will dispute the existence of God, they cannot reject the existence of the Bible. The Bible clearly exists, but where did it come from? Why did people start writing down experiences they claimed to have had of God? If there is no God then why did people keep and preserve these writings and use them as a basis for their social and religious communities? And so the discussion begins.

Logically and reasonably we first need to establish a criteria for proving whether “God exists because the Bible says so”. For example, if a particular book actually is the Word of God and therefore evidence for God’s existence, what would such a book look like? 

What sort of writings would it contain? Would it have any errors? Could its human authors be said to have reliability communicated God’s teachings or commandments in it? Should we expect the original documents to still be around? Are we able to validate its religious truth claims on the basis of it reliably recording certain factual or historical events? And so on.

To examine the claim that the Bible is evidence for God’s existence requires us to explore and understand the assumptions being made to support or deny this, and to do this we need to ask questions and tease out the reasons people have for their different beliefs about it.

The bottom line is this: We cannot reasonably argue against some else’s point-of-view without giving them a good reason as to why we think we are right, or without giving them a good reason for why we think they are wrong!

A Brief Review of Arguments for the Existence of God (Part 2): Cosmological Arguments

To read part 1 of this article click here

Cosmological arguments

As with those based on the notion of design, cosmological arguments seek to argue for the existence of God based on what we experience of the world and universe we live in. The central aim of cosmological arguments is to establish what CAUSED everything to be here, or how the world and the universe began.

Cosmological arguments are attempting to address the problem of an infinite regress. This occurs when we have no starting-point for something. For example, in terms of the origin of the world we might ask where everything came from. If we are told that everything came from x, we would then ask where x came from. If x came from y, then we would logically ask where y came from, and so on and so on. Therefore, in order to stop this never-ending sequence we need an uncaused-cause of everything.

The Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-74 CE) is known for examining two versions of the cosmological argument. In one he argued that every event has a cause, and this leads us to posit a first cause of everything. In another version he argued that things only move because they are moved by something else; leading us to seek the first mover of everything. Aquinas' cosmological arguments were basically intended to show that in order for anything to be here, it requires the presence of something existing before anything else did, and being a Christian he believed the world is only be here because God created it.

Here are the two cosmological arguments Aquinas set out in more detail:

• The argument from FIRST CAUSES: Whatever exists is here because something else has caused it to be here (for example, children are here because of their parents). Things cannot cause themselves to exist (for example, children cannot give birth to themselves). There cannot be a never-ending (infinite) chain of causes. God is the first cause of everything here.
• The argument from MOTION: Things move (or become something else), because something causes it to do this. It is impossible for motion in the universe to have always been happening, so it must have begun somewhere (and somehow). There cannot be a never-ending (infinite) chain of events. God is the first mover (cause) of everything.

Naturalistic evolution works from the premise that the world and the universe had a first cause, this being known as a Singularity (aka ‘Big Bang’); We should also note that logically for naturalistic evolution to work, this present world and universe cannot always have existed.

Summary: Key features of cosmological arguments

• Nothing happens in the world without a reason.
• Events in the world have been caused by something else.
• Things in the world and the universe did not cause themselves to come into existence.
• To deal with the problem of an infinite regress the world and the universe must have a first cause.
• The reason why the world and the universe are here is because of God.
• Cosmological arguments are based on comparing the way things work in the world, to the way things must be in the universe (analogy).

Evidence in support of cosmological arguments

• We can see from our own experience that things happen in the world because something else has caused them to happen.
• That we are here because of our parents, and they are here because of theirs etc., is an example of something which cannot have an infinite regress. Life has not always been here. Something must have caused humans to be here.
• Science tells us that the world had a starting point (The 'Big-bang').
• Modern cosmology posits that stars are moving out and that the universe is expanding. This suggests it had a starting point.

Debates about cosmological arguments

One of the biggest problems with cosmological arguments is that they appear to be self-defeating. If we say that EVERYTHING must have a cause, and that nothing can exist without having been caused by something else, then what about God who is said to be an uncaused causer? This seems to leave the question begging: 'If God caused everything, then who caused God?' In order words, why construct an argument on the basis that everything needs a cause, and then argue that the answer to how the world and universe got here is an uncaused cause (i.e. God)? This is contrary to the logic of the argument. If we say that God is uncaused, then why not the world and universe too?

Another problem for cosmological argument is that scientific explanations for the origins of life do not require the existence of God to explain why anything is here. In fact, it seems the more 'science' works to explain the world around us, the less we need of God. For example, in the past God has often been used to bridge gaps in our scientific knowledge (aka God of the gaps) such as praying and offering gifts to God to ensure a good harvest, or to get pregnant. However now 'science' has shown us that it is good soil and the right fertilizer that will maximise our crop yield, and ovulation tests and IVF now help women to get pregnant.

Yet for all that science informs us about the world and universe we live in, it cannot tell us everything about it. For instance, modern cosmological theories of the origins of life argue that the Singularity which caused the 'Big-bang' was the product of events we can know nothing about. This is because we are unable to 'see' them because they happened prior to anything else coming into existence. So if in reality we are speculating (or making a best-guess) about events prior to the 'Big-bang', this means the possibility of God's existence must remain open, and as such this is why some theologians say science tells us how life began, but God’s existence explains why it did.

A Brief Review of Arguments for the Existence of God (Part 3): Morality and Religion

A Brief Review of Arguments for the Existence of God (Part 1): Introduction and Design

Introduction

Arguments for the existence of God are an attempt to prove (or justify) God's existence by rational means. They are usually expressed in the form of 'If... then' statements. For example:

• If there is evidence for design in the world... then this is evidence for a designer (who is God).

Arguments for the existence of God are based on what in Christian theology is known as general revelation. This is the belief that there is evidence for God's existence from the way things are in the world. Arguments for the existence of God based on general revelation are also called natural theology.

General revelation is contrasted with special revelation. Special revelation consists of knowledge that God has specifically revealed, such as who God is, what God has done (or will do), and how God wants us to live (E.g. The Ten Commandments). Special Revelation can be found in the various holy books of the World Faiths (E.g. The Bible, Qur'an, Guru Granth Sahib).

Although natural theology (based on reason) is said to be capable of demonstrating God's existence, many theologians believe it is incapable of telling us anything about who God is, or how God wants us to live. For example, Muslims would not have known from the way the world is that Allah wanted them to pray five times a day (Salah). This is something Allah specifically revealed to them through the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH*). Furthermore, some say that in relying on our own thoughts and reasoning skills that there is a danger people might confuse their own ideas about who God is, with who God truly is.

Well known arguments for the existence of God

Some of the most widely studied arguments for the existence of God are:

• Design arguments (the way the world is structured and organised)
• Cosmological arguments (considering the ultimate origin of life)
• Moral arguments (the origin of Goodness and why people do good things)
• Logical arguments (making a rational case for God’s existence - E.g. The Ontological Argument)

Some might say that a proof for God’s existence is the phenomena (or existence) of religion. In other words, why do people claim God exists and worship God, if there is no God to believe in or worship in the first place?

Arguments for the existence of God based on the appearance of design in the world

Design arguments suggest that the world has been set up and ordered in such a precise way that this could not have happened by chance, but must have been done by some higher reality. In theistic religions this 'higher reality' is known as God**. Design arguments are also known as teleological arguments. The word telos in Greek means 'purpose', and so teleological arguments suggest that there is evidence of purpose (or intentional design), in the way the world is. For example, eyes and ears are said to have been precisely 'designed' for seeing and hearing, the seasons ordered so as to cause plants to grow year after year, and the ozone layer set up at the correct distance from the earth so as to protect us from harmful U.V. rays.

Inherent in all design arguments is the notion that the world and the universe are complex yet everything seems to fit together in a precise and ordered way, and that this must have been planned in some way.

Those who believe God created the world are called Creationists. Sometimes the notion of Creationism is also linked to a specific idea of how God created the world. For example, because in the Bible it says God created things on the First Day, Second Day, Third Day etc. (Genesis 1), the assumption is made that the world was created within a week. Some Christians also believe that by using the various dates and ages of people we find in the Bible, we can prove that the world was created around 6,000 years ago. People who believe this are known as Young Earth Creationists***.

William Paley (1743-1805) set out what many people consider to be the classic form of the design argument.

The Watch Analogy

“If you came across a watch in an uninhabited place, you could not say it had been put there by chance. The complexity of its mechanism would make you say that it had a designer. Now the universe is far more complex than a watch, and so if a watch needs a watchmaker, the universe needs a universe-maker, and that could only be God.”

Paley's analogy suggests that complex and ordered things do not occur by chance. Instead, complex things (like watches) have been made by someone (watchmaker) and for a specific reason (to tell the time). In the passage above, Paley is suggesting that because the world is complex and ordered then this could not have come about by chance, but must be the product of intelligent design.

Summary: Key features of design arguments

• The world and the universe are ordered.
• The world and the universe have things in them which are 'designed' to do specific 'jobs' (they have a purpose).
• Complex things do not come about by chance, but have been made by someone.
• The world and the universe are complex and ordered places, so these must have been designed and made by some higher reality.
• Theists believe the 'designer' and creator of the world and universe is God.
• The design argument is based on an analogy with the way humans produce complex things (such as watches), to the way things must be in the universe.

Evidence of design in the world and the universe

• The way the seasons are ordered into a 'cycle of life'
• The way the ozone layer protects people from the harmful rays of the sun.
• The way gravity on earth is strong enough so as to keep us flying off it into space, yet also weak enough to prevent other planets from crashing into us.
• The complexity of eyes and ears, whose purpose is to see and hear.

Some issues

Objectors to design arguments say we do not need a God-hypothesis to explain why things are as they are in the world and the universe (i.e. complex and ordered). For these people, science tells them everything they need to know about the world and the universe they inhabit. For instance, they would say that life was 'created' from the 'Big-bang', and that everything has come about as a result of natural evolutionary processes. Of course, rather than arguing against God’s existence it might be said that science explains how God created everything. In other words, maybe God initiated the 'Big-bang' and the process of evolution as a means to forming and filling the world as we know it? The idea that God worked through the Big-bang and evolution to bring about life is known as theistic evolution.

One of the biggest objections to design arguments is the presence of evil and suffering. The argument goes that if the world has been designed and made by God, then why do bad things happen in it, or why did God create one where bad things happen? We should note that this argument does not necessarily disprove God’s existence, just the ability for God to create a good world. God can still exist but stand accused of not having done a very good job creating the world we live in today.

A Brief Review of Arguments for the Existence of God (Part 2): Cosmological Arguments

Notes

* PBUH is an abbreviation of the phrase “Peace Be Upon Him”, which is said after uttering the name of Muhammad (Prophet of Islam), as a sign of respect.

** A theist is someone who believes God exists, and theism is the term we use to describe this belief. Therefore, a theistic religion is one which has as a central idea the belief that God exists.

*** List of Creationist websites: http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationist-websites.