Theism Versus Atheism - Essay Sample

Introduction

Arguments relating to the origin and existence of our universe have been posted by various philosophers raising contradicting views. Of these schools of thought includes Theism and Atheism. Theism refers to the belief that in the universe, there exist one or more divinities which are independent of physical existence but interacts with the universe. Atheism, on the other hand, elevates to the belief that gods do not exist and describes a self-avowed belief. This essay proposes to reflect on the views of William L. Craig and Sean Carrol in their debate, themed 'God and Cosmology: The existence of God in Light of Contemporary Cosmology', regarding existence and role of God in origin and existence of the universe and explore the various arguments posed by philosophers and scientists from the respective schools of thought.

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

Save 25%

In his introductory statement, William Craig highlights that the relations in contemporary cosmology can be considered to raise conflicts which may be apparent, genuine or Concord. Craig claims that evidence of contemporary cosmology renders the existence of God. To support his claim, Craig points at Kalam Cosmological argument and Teleological Argument Quoting the Kalam argument, "if universe began to exist, there is a transcendent cause which brought it to existence" The argument enjoys support from two pieces of evidence; second law of thermodynamics and expansion of universe Craig's statement shows that he asserts the argument that the universe began to exist at some point and there exists a cause which leads to such initial existence.

The idea of whether or not the universe started to exist at some point is debated on basis of knowledge against certainty. It is undoubted knows that the universe exists but most people cannot defend their certainty regarding the question of when and how the universe came into existence. Theories like the Big Bang and Nebula cloud faces their own criticism and preceding theories fades away as more reasonable theories gain more acceptance. In his statement, Craig draws support from Audry and Vilenkin (2012) to concur the argument that the universe had a beginning. By calling on the Teleological argument, Craig asserts that the existence of a fine-tuned occurred by design and not by chance or necessity (min 20). This alludes to his perspective that the universe must have been actually created for the features in it to exists in the harmonized way observable by humans and thus he disputes the theoretical arguments posed by the like of Nebula Cloud theory.

In Sean Carrol's statement, he accepts that the question of whether God existed or played any role in bringing the universe into exist is not taken seriously in any cosmological talks. However, he does not consider the current debate to be in any way addressing the question of whether or not God exists. From his perspective, he views the debate to be naturalism against theism. In his regard, naturalism dictates that there exists a natural universe in which laws of nature are observed while theism is for the argument that over the natural universe there exists a supreme being. Carol insists that cosmology gives a better explanation to the existence of the universe, unlike theism which relies on the supremacy of a creator.

Carrol disputes Craig's argument that the universe came into existence through a transcendent cause. Carroll terms the argument as false for lack of justifiable explanation and insists that only by the existence of working models can such an argument be acceptable and he strongly points out that the models in cosmology help predict what might happen next in the universe. Despite conflicting the argument posed by Craig relating to Vilenkin theory, Craig agrees that cosmologists cannot precisely explain why the universe had a low entropy in the past and attributes the deficiency to an information gap which he claims that maybe there exists a principle or principles that could explain the variation in entropy. Carrol also explains how his theory supports unitarity when he refers to the quantum mechanical wave function which he uses to account for the evolution of the universe from a single entity into many pieces. Regarding Craig's argument about an eternal universe, Carrol describes a thermodynamic beginning, a time when entropy would be high in one direction, a case which in scientific terms could not occur at an initial stage. From this, Carrol confidently concludes that there is no chance for God to have created the universe at any such moment.

In reaction to the Teleological theory raised by Craig, Carrol disputes the argument about a fine-tuned universe considering it as a favorite proposition for theists because it plays by their rules. He argues that a change in parameters approved for naturalism, the surroundings would as well change. He considers the fine tuning theory as a way of despising God because ideally, God should not require parameters for mass or gravity constants to bring life to exist. According to Carrol, the fine-tuning premise is an apparent view as long as cosmologists have not given it enough thought. He also claims that the naturalistic explanation based on multiverse is simple and allows predictions of varying conditions of the universe. Carrol goes ahead to pose a challenge that if theism was true it would be easy to find God. In comparison, he places expectations in atheism to be such that people would believe in God whose evidence would be narrow.

Carrol continues to argue that if theism was true, doctrines would be stable, moral teaching would be transcendent, biological forms would be designed, and the universe would be just and perfect. He compares these views to religious doctrines that have been seen to adjust to social conditions, teachings reflecting local morals, biological forms that derive from evolutionary history, and he thus concludes that the naturalistic universe should be messy and competitive.

In retribution, Craig revisits the argument on the relativity of time and thermodynamics concepts and derives a conclusion that the universe began to exist at some point, which supports a belief in theism that the universe began to exist at some point. Pointing out that his premise addresses the question on the extent to which contemporary cosmology render's God's existence, he claims that existence of God cannot be denied and happens to be even more probable with cosmology agreeing to the universe beginning to exist at some point and the fine-tuning of the universe. Craig considers cosmology as terms of confirming theism.

Carrol's retribution challenges theism, or rather Craig's view by considering theism as a theory that is used to avoid a consideration of other possibilities that explain the existence of a universe or make predictions of what would occur in the universe if certain parameters were altered. Instead, theism would attribute everything to the will and supremacy of God. Carol insists that naturalism applies rules to develop models that explain why certain parameters do not meet expectations under certain conditions. He concludes that unlike the God's works which can't be predicted in theism, nature adheres to rules, predicts, and gives explanations.

Conclusion

Observation from the foregoing arguments shows that the origin of the universe, its evolution and its span of existence are major themes over which philosophers from either school of thought have raised controversial arguments. Both schools of thought demonstrate substantial evidence to support their premises. However, atheists seem to consider theists as a group that institutes a belief in a supreme being as a way of avoiding questioning the alternative possibilities of explaining the nature and event witnessed in the universe. On the other hand, atheists are considered to disregard the supremacy of God in favor of scientific theories.