God exists or not? There is never a specific answer for that.
In my opinion, I will say evolution and a belief in God are incompatible as
Dawkins claims. My reason for that is because I think Dawkins’s argument is
valid. After reading the two different perspectives on reason and proofs for
the existence of God, I find that Thomas Aquinas claims were not as strong as
Dawkins. Most of the points from Aquinas were based on what he called “nature”
which was not persuasive enough to catch my attention. On the other hand,
Dawkins claims are more scientific and trustable. Since Aquinas is in the
thirteenth century, he does not have many proofs to support his claims. Unlike Dawkins,
he has more scientific and logical ways to convince me dto agree with his
argument. Besides, I think Aquinas has added some of his own opinions in
writing the argument by knowing his background as a catholic theologians and
philosophers, whereas Dawkins claims are more objective. If Aquinas was still
alive today, I think he will rearrange his claims and may change his perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment