In his thesis of Modern science Nicholas Everitt argues against the existence of God by examining several scientific concepts such as Darwinism as well as the Big Bang Theory. However, I shall start by examining his argument based on these premises:.
An agent with nature N, beliefs B, and intentions I he will produce change C.
However if we conclude that the world doesn't display C as we expect of the agent then,.
There is evidence against our earlier hypothesis about an agent with nature N, beliefs B and intentions I.
Basically the argument illustrates that based on our earlier hypothesis about this agent, we expected certain change that if not brought about we can argue against the existence of this agent or discredit his nature, beliefs or intentions. To illustrate Everitt draws on Robinson Crusoe's theory to further support his claim. In his theory Crusoe argues that suppose a shipwreck were to take a place and Crusoe postulated that another man survived and was left stranded on an island with him. There are several things he could predict about the other hypothetical survivor. For example, that in the survivor's quest to survival he is likely to try to meet people who may have survived. He's likely to try to leave markings on trees as well as send smoke signals and most likely make a lot of noise. This behavior would be categorized as apt due to the predicament of the survivor as Crusoe predicts. However if Crusoe were to lurk around the island and find none of these characteristics he could come to the conclusion that this hypothetical survivor either doesn't exist because he hasn't displayed any apt behavior relative to survival or his intentions are not as clear as thought of. It could be considered inapt for a survivor to retreat into a cave his intention to stay alive Crusoe states that this could be considered inapt behavior, because it shows construes evidence against his hypothesis.
