{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


Original purpose

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: to these objections amount basically to pointing out the flaws in such traditional theistic arguments. So we won't explore the first couple of objections and Baier's responses to them here. But Baier goes on to address two more objections that we will consider. The Objection from Purposelessness: If we accept the world view of scientific atheism, we’re lead to the view that _________________________________________________________________________. But if that’s true, then human life ultimately has no meaning! (I.e., scientific atheism implies __________________________________.) As Baier puts this objection: [I]t might be argued that the more clearly we understand the explanations given by science, the more we are driven to the conclusion that human life has no purpose and therefore no meaning. The science of astronomy teaches us that our earth was not specially created about 6,000 years ago, but evolved out of hot nebulae which previously had whirled aimlessly through space for countless ages. As they cooled, the sun and the planets formed. On one of these planets at a certain time the circumstances were propitious and life developed. But conditions will not remain favorable to life. When our solar system grows old, the sun will cool, our planet will be covered with ice, and all living creatures will eventually perish. Another theory has it that the sun will explode and the heat generated will be so great that all organic life on earth will be destroyed. That is the comparatively short history and prospect of life on earth. Altogether it amounts to very little when compared with the endless history or the inani...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online