After reading the two passages about the existence of god, I
think that I agree on Dawkins claims because his arguments are valid. Aquinas’
statement is written in early stage and scientific method was not that advance
at that period to disproof the existence of god. Many scientific experiments
show that god is never existed in the planet. Back to Aquinas’ claims, his
claim is partially invalid because he only thinks of one side but not the
other. For example, he talks about nothing caused by it; thus, god must be the
one who initiate human beings. In that case, who initiate god? This is what
Dawkins was trying to proof in his arguments, which is the extent of Aquinas
testimonies. I think if Aquinas is still alive, he would not argued with
Dawkins because I do not think he is able to disproof Dawkins’ argument. On the
other hand, I think he will agree with Dawkins and change his perspective by
then.
Thank you for reading!
Adrian (:
I agree with you that Dawkins claims are more valid than Aquinas’. You point out a good idea of realizing Aquinas was in early stage and his argument was written under a scientific fell behind age. All the data and perspectives were outdated while Dawkins’ argument is up to date. With the support of nowadays technology and scientific methods, Dawkins claim becomes effective. In addition to that, I have the same ide with you that Aquinas was able to disproof Dawkins claims even if he was still alive. Hence, Aquinas was a catholic himself. I think his argument was not as objective as Dawkins. Therefore, I will choose to be in Dawkins’ side.
ReplyDelete