WHY GOD EXISTS REBUTTAL (I KNOW, IT'S LONG)
First off let me say that I do not believe in religion and that heavily influences my opinion of your article. There are several problems with your whole argument, so let's go through paragraph by paragraph.
Your first paragraph states that 54% of the world's population believe in god, followed by a declaration of the existence of a god. This could be a form of a bandwagon fallacy depending on how you interpret it. A bandwagon fallacy is simply appealing to the popularity of something in order to verify it. As I said before, it depends on how you meant it, but it was worth mentioning nonetheless.
In your second paragraph, you say that scientists "still can not think of a way for life to have come into existence on Earth", therefore god. First off, this is simply not true, it is widely agreed that life began with single-celled prokaryotic cells because there is evidence to support it. The question is how those cells first originated. However, by saying we don't know, therefore god, you have
…show more content…
There is a whole paragraph where the scientist explains that "The model creates exoplanets based only on the ones we have discovered, which is an extremely small sample size". What this means is that the scientists have simply made a prediction based on very little data. And as we all know by watching the weather, predictions can be very wrong. Another thing in this paragraph, when you say, "what are the chances that of the 700 quintillion planets in the universe the Earth would be the only one to have life on it". This could be interpreted as a form of gambler's fallacy if we are assuming that the series of events required to create life on Earth is completely random. The gambler's fallacy states that in a random situation, assuming outcomes can be affected by past experiences. Again, if this is not what you meant in your journal then it is irrelevant, but it is still worth