Designer God

This chapter was consumed of arguments trying to answer how the universe was created, is there a god, and is god the one who created the world we live in and everything it offers, and what if god wasn’t the creature of the universe, does god exist at all? The argument of design stated that everything had to have been created by an intelligent designer. It argued that earths wonderful features could not have just happed out of the blue, they had to have had an intelligent designer, they had to have been created by god. The Best-Explanation Argument stated that intelligent design was much more reliable than pure chance. The Same- Evidence Argument stated that the universe is made up of parts that work together to accomplish something, so we can conclude that the universe was created by an intelligent designer. The Natural selection theory was

There is no objective evidence to demonstrate the existence of nature’s creator. If we were to think the design argument was reasonable, then one must also take under consideration the amount of ‘creators’ are required

But there is a distinction drawn between the universe and God is that the universe has a beginning in time. Everything that has a beginning in time, the kalam cosmological argument claims, has a cause of its existence. The uncaused existence of God, who does not have a beginning in time, is consistent with it ’s claim.

“Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge - in this case, evolution - they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species, but that every once in while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today. " A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science - that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution - or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong

Some, such as Paley, aimed to defend this idea using teleological arguments. Such arguments insist on the existence of God by “attempting to identify features of the world that constitute evidence of intelligent design and inferring God’s existence as the best explanation for these features.” Paley compares a watch to living organisms by analogizing: “Watches are complex and good at doing their job (i.e. keeping time). Therefore, it is a result of intelligent design. Living organisms are complex and good at doing their job (i.e. surviving and reproducing). Therefore, they are a result of intelligent design.” Paley believes that if a watchmaker made a watch, then an intelligent designer made other elaborate things, such as the eye or flowers. A problem with this reasoning is that analogies are comparisons, not evidence. Comparing two not identical, but similar things does not make their conclusions equivalent; if one conclusion is true for one argument, it is not guaranteed to be true for the other. In this situation, concluding that a watch has an intelligent designer does not validate the notion that living organisms do as well. In rebuttal, theists attempt to thwart this with the theory of irreducible complexity, or the belief that some traits are too complex to have been produced by evolution’s slow step-by-step process. Similar to the watch, theists believe life is too complex to have been affected by evolution, and the best explanation for living organisms is that they are a result of intelligent

The author also supports his beliefs with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. He states, “Whatever began to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist therefore, the universe has a cause.” (Copan & Meister) In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, “shallow men believe in luck or in circumstance. Strong men believe in cause and effect.” In support of the cosmological argument, the author states, to suggest that things just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and resort to magic.” In reading the material, the author highlights how God in all of his wisdom and power set the earth in perfect motion in such a way that the laws are perfectly balanced not only for human life but for coexistence of plants and animals and all living organisms. Furthermore, if not for the right combination of laws then life as we know it would be

As William Paley once wrote, “There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver; arrange without anything capable of arranging.” In our world today, the ultimate designer, contriver and arranger would be considered God to many. Although the existence of God has consistently been debated throughout the course of time, the cause of debate has almost always returned to science. Considering the Design Argument and the Anthropic Principle, science can be seen to simultaneously support and go against the existence of God depending on one’s own perception of the topic.

Most religious zealots have no doubt about who created and the source of the origin of the universe. The same is true of the existence of the omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresent God. Although God may not be seen or heard or touched, however; by faith, we believe of his majestic existence. His existence as God cannot be measured in terms of Gallup surveys or scientific proofs to show otherwise but “religious thinkers” according to James and Stuart Rachels have offered numerous thesis for the for the existence of God, starting with the argument from design, with its subtitles such as the wonders of nature; the “best-explanation arguments and the same-evidenced argument” (Rachels). In either of the cases, the conclusions drawn were similar in the sense that the universe was created by an intelligent designer.

Our universe had to have been designed for a purpose. Even Isaac Newton believed that the solar system appeared too awesome to have emerged merely from the action of blind forces. For many scientists it was too much to assume that the artful and harmonious organization of nature could be the result of chance. This point of view was articulated by Irish physicist, chemist, and philosopher Robert Boyle – “The excellent contrivance of that great system of the world, and especially the curious fabric of the bodies of the animals and the uses of their sensories and other parts, have been made the great motives that in all ages and nations induced philosophers to acknowledge a Deity as the author of these admirable structures” (Davies, p.

This argument contends that an intelligent designer of the world does exist, and structured the universe so that most natural things fit together for a clear purpose. We can recognize that things in nature seem to be made for specific reasons that are too fortunate to be accidental. For instance, we observe that giraffes have extremely long necks and conveniently eat from the tops of trees. We can also identify that planet earth is just the right distance from the sun and moon to sustain human life. If either of these things were less ideal, there would be drastically worse outcomes for the giraffes and humans on earth. The harmony we witness in nature compels the belief in an intelligent designer.

Explanations of our creation can be explained by observing nature. If there is no basis in nature, then the explanation is not real. It is not an accident, nor is it divine; it is a natural process.

This writer was taught all through school about science. Man evolved, the universe was created by the Big Bang Theory. While this is what was taught in school, there was not much more thought past the basic concepts. While thinking about these theories, there are still questions to how evolution occurred, and who/what caused the Big Bang Theory. Therefore, God could be the answers to the unknown questions.

The existence of God presents a simple response to a complex question. Russell makes a strong point by noting that “if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course.” If God sees us as so special, surely he’ll ensure that our planet endures the test of time and if we were designed so perfectly, I doubt God would have given us the necessary knowledge to create all the emission spewing machines that are harmful to our atmosphere. Perhaps we will need God’s might sooner rather than later in the form of a helping hand from a “big

Atheists often insist there is no evidence for the existence of God while maintaining religious faith is fundamentally irrational. This paper will examine the Kalām Cosmological Argument (KCA), demonstrating that it offers strong evidence for the existence of God, thereby providing a rational foundation for the Christian faith.

The Argument from design is analogous in nature and can be envisioned through key philosopher William Paley (1743-1809). With his argument of intelligent design acknowledged as the “classical” statement in coupled with his natural theology (1802). Additionally we will explore other forms of the argument from design in a more contemporary version. These consist of Hugh Ross’ Fine-tuning of the universe in reference to his published book The Creator and the Cosmos (1999), and the explanation of how the theory of evolution by natural selection attempts to account for the rise in complex organisms and natural structures without inferring to the concept of an intelligent designer. Lastly, exploring a critical discussion of