The overall philosophical issue in this statement is whether science can actually prove religion to be wrong. God doesn’t exist though.
Humanists and Atheists would agree with this sentence because of the way they think evidence and knowledge is gained. Humanists believe and think that god does not exist. Based on this they will immediately place all possible outcomes of everything down to nature and the explanation for it using the real hard evidence. God can’t be proven through evidence. A humanist will believe that everything given to them over time and throughout history (natural selection) has come within science.
Secondly, Richard Dawkins, who was an English biologist, wrote a book called ‘the God of Delusion’. Within this book, Dawkins tried to disprove any evidence or theories about the existence of God, but the main argument that came forth within this was the one that stated how the theory of Natural selection (and the evidence that proved it) was much more logical and factually correct than the idea of a floating being in the air passing out judgement. Throughout the course of the book, there is not one statement that proves the idea of god, only disproves it, and logically, he is correct.
Thirdly, Epicurus, who was an ancient Greek philosopher, used rationalism to try and disprove the theory of Gods existence. He created a riddle called the “epicurean paradox”. There are eight parts to the riddle. The first part states that god exists. The second says that he is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good. The third states that everything perfectly good would want to protect all evil. The fourth states, that an omniscient being will know of every single way that evil can happen. The fifth states that he has the power to prevent this evil. The sixth states that he –...