Wednesday, February 20, 2013

[PHI 3000] Bill O'Reilly "proves" the existence of God

Colbert comments on Bill O'Reilly's "proof" of God's existence:



And comments on O'Reilly's reply to critics (from 2:30):



Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we cannot explain the tides. Would it then follow that God must be responsible for the tides?

3 comments:

  1. For argument sake if would could not explain the tides that does not mean that god is responsible for them. I am Roman Catholic who goes to church every Sunday, so I do believe in god. For example, god created man, but that does not mean god controls everything we do. God created the Universe, Earth, water, and all living things. Like we need trees and plants for oxygen the ocean needs the moon for tides. Everything in this world works together and serves a purpose. There are people who cannot prove if there is a god or not, but they also cannot prove how everything got here as well; there are only theories. Since nobody knows the exact truth or facts, we all have our own beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If we could not explain the tides it still does not follow that God is the one responsible. Anything can be the cause of the tides changing. Our observations on tide patterns are not sufficient evidence to link God as the one responsible for that. Consistency is not proof that God exists because even if something has been happening every day for years does not guarantee that it will happen again tomorrow. The lack of evidence in Bill O'Reilly's claim is what leads people to question it. Not knowing how things in our world happen is not proof that God exists and is the cause of it. In order for O’Reilly’s claim to be valid he needs to back up his claims with evidence beyond observations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cleopatra Acquaye-ReynoldsApril 16, 2014 at 11:40 PM

    If we could not explain the tides, would it follow that God must be responsible for the tides? What?! Of course not! There are plenty of things that exist today in which we cannot figure out the meaning behind why it exists but we don't automatically jump to the conclusion that a deity of some sort is responsible. Let's take the pre-copernicus ideal of the universe circling the earth. There was a consensus in the scientific community that this was true. However, there were many, most prominently Copernicus, who opposed that idea with newer and more accurate models of the universe. I state this to point out that we as a society will never default to one idea to being a universal truth. We can have the idea that God is responsible for actions in the universe but also perpetuate scientifically proven ideas. I know believing in God might be ridiculous for some people but It is substantially more so and also irresponsible to rely on one explanation for a phenomenal natural event.

    ReplyDelete

This is an academic blog about critical thinking, logic, and philosophy. So please refrain from making insulting, disparaging, and otherwise inappropriate comments. Also, if I publish your comment, that does not mean I agree with it. Thanks for reading and commenting on my blog.