Now, this argument seems at first to be logically sound - it makes sense. However, there are problems with it. Here are the criticisms that others have provided against my argument, listed for your convenience. Some of these points are so good that I have decided to reform my argument, which is the next part.
1) The first part of the argument is 'pointless'. The argument only talks of a necessary being who created the world, but stops there. As this isn't the general understanding of God, it is useless in any meaningful debate about God, like debates about the Judeo-Christian God.
2) My definition of God is faulty: the traditional understanding of God is one that interacts with the world. Surely if He does, then science CAN in fact be used to prove or disprove God?
[More criticisms to come]
YOU ARE READING
Reason, Science and God
Non-FictionA collection of my philosophical musings on God.
