Richard Dawkins

[Peter666]

Thanks for the reading.

I don't think your students can refute the cosmological argument. They may argue against it, but their conclusions would be wrong.

Bertrand Russel said the universe "just is" which is actually an explanation for God, not the universe. But perhaps he did not like the word "God" for whatever personal reason.

The arguments citing the Big Bang Theory can offer no conclusive evidence whatsoever of this event emerging from nothingness. The silliest argument to me was the one where electrons are said to dissapear into nothing and then reappear. These scientists act as if this could be the final conclusion, even though many more years of study and examination will surely reveal new facts. It is the equivalent of saying that water is an element. Sure, maybe 3000 years ago, but we know that is not true now, and who knows what we will know after 3000 years.

What baffles me is the passion and ardour that people have in trying to refute things that make the most sense.

It is obvious to me, and to other philosophers of the moderate realist position, that a thing cannot exist at any moment if it is constantly in flux. There must be a perfect potency underlying all things. Aristotle made this clear long ago. Yet, essentially, modern philosophers argue against this but can offer no alternative explanation except "that's just the way it is." They seem to obsessed with trying to prove someone else wrong rather than revealing truth and explanations. I have a feeling that ego is involved in all of this.