This is what Mycology fails to see in his argument. It is understandable that a non-believer could doubt things that are not proven to their own eyes. One issue with Mycology’s argument revolves around God and evil. Many atheists, including Mycology, have the view that if God is so important, so almighty, and a “do Goode”, why would he allow evil to exist? Mycology has the worldview that it is better to not believe in any god than to believe in one true God who would allow evil in his world. However, what Mycology and other fail to realize is that with good comes evil, and with evil comes good.
One cannot exist without the other. Professor Foreman argued that there is no singular instance where we can prove that God exists, but rather many that together suggest proof. Professor Foreman also uses electrons as an example of something that exists, but we do not have actual proof as to what it actually is. Electrons produce light and energy, which we all know exists. Black holes are another example provided by Professor Foreman, and while they are talked about often, no one really knows what they are, what they look like, or how they exist.
Just because something Anton be proven to exist in every facet of one’s logic does not mean that it does not exist. Another issue that Mycology has issues with involving an actual God are cosmological arguments. The biggest issue that Mycology, as well as others, have is that they are judging the matter inaccurately. Many times, people want to find the literal, actual sense of something, and it is not always possible. Evans and Manias describe many types of arguments that people use to judge different issues. Evans, C. Stephens and Manias, R. Zachary, Philosophy of Religion, IPP Academic, 2009. Not all arguments work for all issues.
The cosmological argument can only be effective if someone takes into consideration different issues to make a judgment. The cause of the universe must be necessary, as everything has a beginning and eventually an end. While there is no singular instance that points to God creating it, other than the book of Genesis, the multiple factors combined point to the argument that God did create the universe. To base ones belief in God solely in the cosmological argument is weak, as Evans and Manias conclude. Old. At 77. Mycology wants “indisputable proof’ (p. 64) in terms of a technological argument, as well.
While indisputable proof would be fantastic, it simply does not exist. The same can be said for the aforementioned electrons and black hole; we know they are here, but we do not know exactly what they are or when they were formed originally. While many throw this argument around in their efforts to support evolution, there is not ironclad proof of evolution. There is no documented, indisputable proof as to when the first breath was taken, or when the first step was walked, or even when the first cell was formed. However, we do breath, walks, and are full of cells, so we somehow exist.
This argument by Mycology and others is weakened due to science’s inability to prove other thing that we know actually exist, or actually occurred. It is normal to be skeptical, even on things that have been proven, or are highly believed in. However, very few things in this world have indisputable proof, and the argument that it must exist in order for something to exist is Off base. Others may argue that the difference in species is enough to forgo the belief that God created us. This argument is weak as well, as scientist cannot actually prove that a “big bang’ caused everything to appear on Earth.
Someone could argue that if a cosmological “big bang’ caused life to appear on Earth, why no other planets as well? We know there is a slim chance that viable life exists elsewhere, and even the scientific community states so. Therefore, the “big bang’ theory has holes as well. It is not indisputable proof, and yet atheists and scientists push it as being so. While there are many types of arguments that can be made, I believe that Mycology is using a temporal argument, and it is just not feasible in matters concerning God and our creation.
The main issue with evolution, besides not knowing when or how beings ere created, is that there is perhaps less knowledge about creation than the Biblical accounts. The theory that we were created from an accident in the universe cannot be totally proven, nor can the act that we evolved from lesser creatures. If we evolved, why didn’t whatever we evolved from become extinct? Of course, the dinosaurs did, but the scientific community and the atheistic community is not claiming that we evolved from dinosaurs. One of the issues that Even and Manias bring up is whether Or not their presumed order of universal development is accurate (p. 3). There is very little scientific fact to support the atheistic and scientific views of this; however, they believe it to be without fault. Many atheists, Mycology included, argue that if there was a loving God that there would not be evil in this world. This is not a viable argument in terms of wanting to show that God does not exist. Yes, there is evil, but there is also good. Those who argue this point do not understand Christianity. Humanity is flawed, and we do sin, and yes, there is evil in the world. However, God has given us the chance to ask for forgiveness, and give us forgiveness through
Jesus. Evil will exist in those who do not accept Jesus, and perhaps is manages to exist somewhat in those of us who do. However, humanity, as flawed as we are, are not given a pass from God just because some of us have accepted Jesus. Not everyone that has a terrible event happen to them is a sinner or is evil. Christians know that a life with terrible circumstances with Jesus in it is better than an afterlife without Jesus. Religious truth is a mixture of logic, science, ethics, experience, history, and philosophy.
It is not a set notion, as many scientific issues are, which can infuse those who are not believers, or are not open-minded to hearing believers. Those who are not religious often see those who are religious as narrow-minded or ignorant, and it is actually the opposite. If someone could prove scientifically, with fact, that we were the result of a cosmological accident, many would look further into the evidence. This is not the case, however, as discussed above. Mycology and others tend to relish in their beliefs that God does not exist for varying reasons, all which cannot be proven to support their theory.
I enjoy a conversation with someone who has theistic views, or other views different from my Christian world view. It is not to judge them, but enjoy a good conversation and debate. However, what always falls short is that many in the non-religious community are not willing to listen to the other side. It makes me wonder how they would react if somehow the scientific community embraced the idea of creation as the Christian world embraces it. It is disturbing to hear the argument that atheism brings peace and comfort to someone. It saddens me to think that those who believe that we die and there is no afterlife are okay with that.
Mycology appears to contribute all evil and all wrongdoings to God, which Christians and others in the religious community know is not true. He holds the ideology that if there was a true, loving god that no evil would exist. Call it the “why me” theory, meaning, “why would something bad happen to me if there was a loving god? ” This happens far too often, and what Mycology and others do not realize is that they are severely over-analyzing the issue. While the complexity of our creation, existence, and God are beyond comprehension on many levels, they take it at face value.