Stafford Betty and Bruce Cordell states that because it is so unlikely that our universe was randomly generated, there must have been an intelligent designer. Betty and Cordell point to the calculations of many renowned scientist to show that our unique universe could not have existed if the slightest detail were any different than the way it is now. They state, “At this point we must ask ourselves what is easier to imagine and thus to believe; that the cosmos’ entire history should have arisen from this self-creating and self-explaining surd; or that a pre-existing mind and power of vast magnitude should have created the ingredients of the universe and triggered it at the Big Bang? The second alternative seems a little bit more likely… (Betty and Cordell 223).” This argument goes off of inference of the best explanation in the sense that logically it makes more sense and easier to believe that an intelligent designer created the universe rather than a random explosion of matter that started to expand and our universe was formed. This point also creates an objection though, where did God come from and how did he create everything ex nihilo, or out of nothing. The theist should properly respond to this objection by pointing to the definition of God, a wholly good and omnipotent being. So by our human perspective God or the intelligent designer should not be able to create himself, but remember by omnipotent he can do all, for he is all powerful so there is
The Design Argument, or teleological argument, focuses on Thomas Aquinas’ fifth proof for God’s existence. This proof states that if an event does not occur by coincidence or chance, then the aforementioned events are purposefully orchestrated or of a certain design. The teleological argument essentially implicates God as the ultimate designer and creator of all events and matters on earth; however, there has been much criticism of whether or not God is truly the
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
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
In chapter two of the book “Problems from Philosophy”, by James Rachels, the author guided us through the process in which the topic of God and the origin of the universe was discussed and argued. There were many arguments many arguments towards this topic from both a religious belivers view point, and a non-believer. The main points in this chapter were the arguments, like the argument from design, the best-explanation argument, the same-evidence argument, the theory of Natural selection, and the first cause argument.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
The idea of the intelligent design, which is the main subject in all assigned articles, presents our world as a product of the action of a higher, superior Being. This religious and somewhat creative outlook on life differs from the general idea of evolution which states that life is all related and has ascended from a common ancestor. These articles present views that support the notion of the intelligent design and challenge the universally common theory of Darwin’s evolution.
The reason for the theory of intelligent design is born from people’s lack of understanding of how evolution, natural selection, and adaptations have worked together over centuries to create life how it is seen today. Most of the skeptics of evolution find ground in their argument in religion, though this hardly
“The strengths of the Cosmological Argument lie in both its simplicity and easily comprehensible concept that there cannot be an infinite number of causes to an event. Some arguments for God's existence require more thought and training in terms and concepts, but this argument is basic and straightforward. Also, it is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into existence and must, therefore, have causes.”