Cosmology and God Essay

I find the topic "Cosmology and God" to be both thoughts aggravating philosophically as well as historically fascinating. Scientific cosmology employs the tool of mathematical physics to make testable and precise predictions while theology assumes a sovereign and transcendent God that created the universe and maintains its existence continually (Craig et al., pg. 89). However, I find the topic a perfect platform to keep improving because when theory gets proven by science or identifies reasonable proof of the argument, we draw nearer to understanding more of a significant amount of the observed energy and matter. Caroll's main points are that the demand for bases and explanations is inappropriate for present-day cosmology and that theism is undermined in cosmological expert circles because it is despondently ill-defined. On the other hand, Craig defends his two chosen arguments, fine-tuning and the cosmological argument.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The debate does not change my mind at all because I believe God's existence does not depend on an individual's ability to argue against or for him excellently. Since the debate was exclusive to cosmology, Craig found difficulties to bring in other types of proof for God's existence besides arguments linked to cosmology or fine-tuning. I see a stronger test for God's presence in Craig's previous debates through his focus on evidence for miracles such as Jesus's resurrection than anything coming from cosmology.

To begin with, I feel that cosmology should get people to wonder if there is somebody who did what it explains to get people curious to start exploring for lines of proof based on experience or history. In my opinion, it is not a necessity for cosmology to make people hold a belief in God, but the standard case from cosmology. If there exist things that are puzzling such as fine-tuning which might be clarified by God and might have an explanation that differs such as the multiverse, to me a response that is natural is to keep an open-mind concerning all possible accounts. It may imply that God's existence is not ridiculously unlikely.

Furthermore, I believe that Craig did an excellent job by basing his arguments on cosmology. Similarly, I also found it interesting when Caroll less maintained his arguments on cosmology when he said that if there was truth in theism, there was no cause for finding God to be difficult. Caroll indicated that God should be recognizable although, in naturalism, one may expect people to have a belief in God but lack evidence on the ground (Waters, pg. 314). He also revealed that he could expect religion to have universal beliefs. If theism was real and that there was no cause for God to give messages that are special to a given primitive tribe which existed many decades ago and the current tribes, why could God not deliver the signals to any random person? Also pointed out that one could expect theism to offer clear and progressive religious moral teachings that pointed out that slavery and sexism are wrong. Caroll also mentioned that he hoped the theism's revered messages could provide fascinating information such as the indication of the germ philosophy of disease, which makes it clear to people that they should sanitize their hands before partaking a meal. He also showed that he could expect holy texts in naturalism to be good parts, some mythological, some dull and other components to be poetic (Craig et al., pg. 143s).However, I find it a bit funny that Carroll considers the bible should have had scientific facts while the book of Leviticus contains sanitation rules concerning cleanliness.

In my opinion, another point of the debate that was interesting was when Caroll seemed to assume that Craig's views could not be evidence-based if he did not hold a belief in theism for scientific explanations. He indicated that very few people in the current world become religious to believe in God because it offers the most excellent biology or physics, psychology or cosmology and that it comprises Dr. Craig. Caroll also mentioned a quote by Craig that provided how people do not believe in Christianity for its arguments in cosmology. That said, I find it interesting when a person who makes grand prerogatives about Science's philosophical effects is poked to end up telling stories of the existence of things before the emergence of Science.

Most importantly I will add that to tell his story correctly, Caroll requires asserting that he would have been devoutly religious individual hundreds of years ago. He did not present arguments based on science for thousands of years ago. On the contrary, I deliberate that all that Caroll did was indicate the reasons he does not have faith in arguments by Craig. His case of random grief, weird things in the bible and numerous religions and that the earth is tiny while the universe is indeed vast. As well as weariness, physiological discharges' and drugs influence on the mind was as evident to wise people hundreds of years ago as it currently is (Pal, pg. 81). No matter the magnitude of lecturing that may get received concerning the functioning of science, theories can be corrected with fresh data which may result in further complications of the approaches (Waters, pg. 406). Despite the flaws in the debate, I still think that the discussion exhibited proper arguments based on the topic of discussion.

Works Cited

Craig, William Lane, and Sean Carroll. God and Cosmology: William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll in Dialogue. Fortress Press, 2016.pg 15 - 188

Waters, Benjamin Victor. "Toward a new kalam cosmological argument." Cogent Arts & Humanities 2.1 (2015): 106-461.

Pal, Himangsu S. "Science proves the existence of God." Scientific GOD Journal 7.6 (2016). pg 21-134