Atheism Essay, Research Paper

The agnostic argues that, unless you are all-knowing, you can non state for certain that there are no Gods. However, the Atheist believes there are no Gods, and most atheists are rather certain. How can the Atheist say there are no Gods, without claiming space cognition?

The reply lies in the method of analysis. There is no scientific trial that can confute a God. A legal truth trial, instead than a scientific truth trial, is more appropriate for spiritual claims.

If you want to find the assorted differences between fresh H2O and sea H2O, the scientific method works merely all right. You can & # 8220 ; turn out & # 8221 ; that H2O furuncles at a different temperature, and so forth.

But faith is a credibleness issue, non a scientific issue ( this is why many who would be atheists alternatively call themselves agnostic, they want & # 8220 ; scientific & # 8221 ; cogent evidence, as opposed to looking at it as a credibleness job ) . There is merely no fact about life, nature, the existence, morality, or anything else, that would take person to believe in a divinity ( non without first holding been brainwashed ) . So, faith International Relations and Security Network & # 8217 ; t a & # 8220 ; scientific & # 8221 ; issue. You wouldn & # 8217 ; t expression at a mountain, and conclude a divinity plopped it at that place, without being pre-conditioned as a kid to believe a God made everything.

I reject the statements of Christians who attempt to utilize scientific discipline as a footing of faith. Christian readings of Thermodynamics, creationism, all are merely bad scientific discipline. Science neither proves, nor disproves, a God.

There are some scriptural issues which would look to be scientific in nature. You could state that the issue of Creation vs. Evolution is fundamentally a scientific discipline inquiry. Possibly. You might state that the scriptural mentions to a inundation, and to a Sun standing still for a twenty-four hours, present scientific issues. These are, in world, credibleness issues.

The existent issue is, does the author of Genesis ( whoever those anon. aggregators of Hebrew folk tales were ) have it on good authorization that God made the Earth in seven yearss? Or, is he merely reiterating a common fabrication of the twenty-four hours? This presents issues of credibleness instead than scientific discipline. Make the Gospels tell a true narrative? Did God truly give Moses stone tablets with 10 commandments carved on them? If so, so there & # 8217 ; s a God. Did God one twenty-four hours really state, & # 8220 ; Let there be Light? & # 8221 ;

Courts exist for one intent merely: To find whose narrative is the truth. If truth were non an issue in the courtroom, you could make a test by mail. Standard courtroom truth trials developed for the exclusive intent of analysing credibleness. Once scriptural claims are subjected to the criterion courtroom legal trials ( rumor, personal observation, contradiction, confirming grounds, circumstantial grounds, common cognition, and plain old common sense ) and the claims of faith autumn level ; there is no room left for agnosticism.

1. Personal Observations. In a courtroom, a informant is expected to attest as to his ain personal observations. All spiritual paperss such as the bible wholly anon. histories by people who ne’er claim to hold seen what they say happened. ( The book of Mormon is an interesting exclusion ) . Nowhere in his Gospel does Matthew state, & # 8220 ; I was at that place, I saw this. This is how I felt. Jesus healed me, personally. & # 8221 ; Nowhere does Matthew state, & # 8220 ; I was the apostle Matthew the Tax Collector. & # 8221 ; You must presume this of import fact, and the thought that Matthew saw the events of which he writes flies in the face of how his Gospel was written.

What this agency, is that if the bible were offered as grounds in a tribunal of jurisprudence, it would be rejected as an anon. papers, written by writers who do non even pretend to hold seen that which they describe. It doesn & # 8217 ; t affair whether we do or wear & # 8217 ; Ts know who exactly Luke was, or who Matthew was, or who John was ; the of import point is that, whoever they were, they didn & # 8217 ; t witness the events they describe. If they did, they would hold said so.

2. Hearsay. ( Basically ) . Alternatively, he & # 8217 ; s merely reiterating narratives told. The beginning of Luke admits it was written at a clip when a digest of Gospels existed. Bible schol

Ars argue about whether Matthew copied from Luke, or Luke from Mark ; the truth is, if the copied from each other, they weren’t eyewitnesses.

If the authors of the Gospels could be resurrected from the dead, their testimony would non be allowed in a courtroom unless they could state ( and they do non in any Gospel ) that they witnesses the events which they describe.

3. Contradiction. If a informant contradicts another, or himself, it may be inferred he is less than truthful, and all of the testimony of that informant may be rejected. We are all familiar with the 100s of contradictions in the Bible.

4. Confirming Evidence. In a tribunal of jurisprudence, truth is determined by sing non merely what grounds is available, but alsoe by what is losing. Where is the confirming grounds of Jesus & # 8217 ; being? Why are at that place no Hagiographas of Jesus? Why no contemporary historian claims to hold met Jesus? Why no physical description? Where are the Ten Commandments? Where are the Roman records of Jesus & # 8217 ; executing? Why is at that place no papers back uping the Gospel & # 8217 ; s allegation of a Judaic usage to liberate a captive on Passover? Why didn t the Jews accept Jesus? etc.

The deficiency of grounds is grounds. From the entire deficiency of confirming grounds, you infer the allegation is unsupported.

5. Circumstantial Evidence. Direct Evidence refers to things like eyewitness testimony, and to this, the standard conflict call & # 8220 ; You can & # 8217 ; t prove a negative & # 8221 ; applies. You & # 8217 ; ll ne’er have an eyewitness to state he saw something that didn & # 8217 ; t go on, nor will at that place be a DNA trial to state who wasn & # 8217 ; T at a offense scene. Circumstantial grounds is how you disprove a negative. Is the bible a merchandise of crude heads seeking to explicate the unknown, as with other myths? Has there of all time been a believable narrative of supplication answered, or miracles happening? Does the bible have narratives of astonishing engineering, or does it state of a level Earth, immobile and supported by pillars, with four corners, covered by a canopy of H2O? Does the bible appear plagiarized from other faiths? Do the actions of the major scriptural figures reflect a high codification of ethical motives, or is the God of the bible used as an alibi to ravish, booty and loot? Does Christianity pull masterminds after drawn-out probe, or does it pull more than its portion of imbeciles, retrieving rummies, and chesty kids?

6. Common Knowledge. Neither Judgess nor juries are required to abandon their common cognition as they enter the courtroom. Neither the Agnostic, nor the Atheist, has of all time had a supplication answered. Neither has heard the voice of a God. Neither has seen a God, nor any spirit, nor anything remotely resembling one. The existence is comprised of material elements ; there is no grounds of any spirit universes. Miracles don t happen. Look around you ; without exclusion, there are no Gods.

7. Complain Old Common Sense. Is mental unwellness caused by devils? Will the stars fall from the sky? Do you anticipate that 1/3 of the ocean will turn into blood? Do you truly believe 500 dead saints rose from their Gravess and walked into town, as Matthew Tells, upon the decease of Jesus? That Jonah lived for three yearss in a closed container of fish puke? That 600 y.o. Noah, and his 500 y.o. boies, construct a wooden boat the size of a WWII aircraft bearer, without power tools? That the Jews merely allow capital felons loose on the Passover?

Courts require that juries toss out understanding ; Christians & # 8220 ; want & # 8221 ; to believe in a God, they & # 8220 ; wish & # 8221 ; they were created, but understanding is non grounds. Flip out pre-conceived impressions about a God ; bias is non grounds. Religious claims, so, fail every truth trial common to a courtroom.

So, you & # 8217 ; rhenium left with a big heap of unchallenged grounds stating Christianity is bunk, being weighed against all the grounds in favour of Christianity: Nothing.

If some grounds pointed to a God, and some against, we could ground that the job is finally unsoluable. On the other manus, where grounds is unchallenged, we are left with no uncertainty: There are no Gods.

These are the grounds why I & # 8217 ; m an atheist, and non an agnostic.

316