Order in Thee Court
This section of chapter five is about Cumulative Case Arguments. Cumulative Case Arguments is explained by Micheal Martin, an atheist. He contends that no theological case that argues there is a G_d [or theism] should be considered valid while resting its case on only one piece of evidence.
He does this by comparing the “Theistic Argument” to an ordinary court room argument. Martin states that a lawyer trying to proof his case in court would not rest his case on one piece of evidence because if the opposing side were to dispute that piece of information and win the whole defense of it would crumble. With that point, I agree. However, I do not know of any religion that bases their entire existence on one particular piece of proof.
I believe there are many pieces of evidence to support the theistic argument. For one thing G_d is truth, whether you believe it or not does not make the statement a lie or the truth for that matter. Atheism is a choice to believe you are not a believer in Theism. So instead they put trust in the science [of god] which to me is being very narrow minded. How can I think that a chair [Science] just magically appeared? What about the tree [the origin of the chair?] What of the seed the tree came from and the origin of that? The only answer they ever have is science, and I believe that is an incomplete response. That is supporting Atheism with only one piece of evidence. Is that not the truth? Secondly, why is it so wrong to know there is a G_d? Or the Devil for that matter ? Even the Devil knows that G_d is not fabricated in the minds of humans. Who taught us wrong from right? Some mad scientist that created him self in a lab? I don’t think so. That sound like science fiction not the truth. I could go on about the Godlessness of Atheism but to quote a famous singer “I’m not trying to give to church….”
Comments are closed