John Smith The Probability Of Life

The fine-tuning argument by Collins highlights a universe which has been perfectly created for suitable life and that the smallest miscalculation would have been unbearable to sustain life. According to the first premise, the reality of the fine-tuning is not improbable under theism, while premise two states, the fine-tuning is very improbable under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis. The conclusion is that fine-tuning data support robust evidence to support the design hypothesis over the atheistic singe-universe hypothesis. As already noted, most critics would reject the fine tuning-argument by making a compelling argument that there are likely many other big bang that we are probably unaware of and that it is highly probable the universe

Paley’s made his argument using an analogy to prove the existence of god, using a watchmaker analogy and to image if we found a watch on the ground and could it have been possible for the watch to simply appear randomly, spontaneously on its own. Paley was arguing that the teleology demonstrated by a watch would conclude that it was designed by an intelligent creator with a particular end in mind. While Aquinas has a design argument of his own ,the Teleological argument focuses on the condition that allows for life in the universe to only occur when certain fundamental physical constants are within a very narrow range if one of many fundamental constant are off slightly, then the universe would be unfit for the development of matter and life. Since these things are so finely tuned it appears an intelligent designer may have been involved in making sure these things happened so life could occur that designer Aquinas believes to be

The literature on Intelligent Design and Macroevolution suggests that Intelligent Design is a viable alternative to Macroevolution. Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species wrote the greatest flaw in his theory was the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record, but he thought more would be discovered as time went on. Contrary to Darwin’s belief Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould found that most species exhibit no change in the fossil record and appear in the

William Paley’s teleological argument (also known as the argument from design) is an attempt to prove the existence of god. This argument succeeds in proving that while existence was created by an aggregation of forces, to define these forces, as a conscious, rational, and ultimately godlike is dubious. Although the conclusions are valid, the argument makes several logical errors. The teleological argument relies on inductive reasoning, rendering the argument itself valid, but unsound. The argument fails to apply its own line of reasoning to itself, resulting in infinite regression. Beyond the scope of its logical flaws, the arguments content lacks accurate comparisons. The argument hinges on a

The outline of the design argument is that the universe has order and purpose and is regular, the complexities of the universe demonstrate some form of design, a design requires a

Question 1) C.S Lewis like many of us was skeptical about several arguments made by intelligent design alone. After many years of research, he came up with arguments that demonstrate the world was not created by a divine intelligent design alone.

Part of the problem is, in fact, that it does not necessity a God nor prove a God, however, neither does it disprove.  It does suggest there is another reason, or cause, for which the universe is as it is.    Still, the greater the odds, the less likely such things occur of accident.  The chances of life occurring on this planet, of all planets, in the whole universe, is less than 1 chance in 10182. Others, considering the possibility of life on other planets, based on evolution, hold it to be less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years.  ( (Staff 2008)) Even scientifically, these probabilities are practically null.

I believe that anything that seems design has a creator, therefore Paley’s argument has a valid point. The world does not seem like it was just put there without any thought. But it looks organized, like someone (god) sat there and thought about how to created and make it function, just

The Argument from Design In William Paley’s “Argument from Design” he seeks to prove God’s existence by comparing the world and universe we live in to a machine, specifically a watch. The goal of the design argument is to prove the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good God through the watch analogy. The analogy tries to say that if we look at the creation of the universe like that of a watch, we can infer that it has a purpose and a designer. While this seems to be valid, there are some flaws in Paley’s argument that I will point out.

The two main arguments used in support of Intelligent Design are the arguments from improbability and irreducible complexity. Scientists and philosophers have always been staggered at the sheer multitude of living organisms on Earth. When creationists see this diversity and complexity of life on our planet instead of marvelling at the millions of years it took for an organism to reach the stage it is in, they see the marvellous work of the designer who made all this come to pass. It is of course, not entirely illogical to assume there is a creator. ‘The Watchmaker argument’ is a famous example which is used to justify the existence of a creator.

Based on my interpretation of William Paley’s The Argument from Design, it sounds as though Darwin’s objection to the argument is invalid from the start. Darwin’s objection says that there doesn’t necessarily need to be a designer, creation could happen by chance through evolution or mutation. While the latter part of his argument is completely valid; things can be created through evolution and mutation, the problem with his argument is that there would still have to be a reason that the former being evolved or mutated. Some kind of event would have had to of taken place in order to spark the change in that being. Paley’s argument primarily uses a watch as his example, explaining that it was

(The Law of Biogenesis [Part 1]). “Whatever effect selection may possibly have had on random processes in later biological reproduction, it is clear beyond any rational argument that chance processes could have never produced even the simplest forms of life in the first place. Without a living God to create life, the laws of probability and complexity prove beyond doubt that life could never come into existence at all. Life, at the very simplest level conceivable, has absolutely no possibility of having been generated by any other means than special creation by a living Creator.” (H. Morris and J. Morris

Mark, I appreciate how you bring out the attempts of Dawkins to refute the existence of God, and the overall belief in science by utilizing the laws of probability, and a computer model of artificial selection to assert major arguments for the improbability of a supreme being. Both the laws of probability and the computer model are man-made examples that man created, therefore can manipulate into any outcome they desire. While the law of probability may be a rule within the scientific realm, why should I choose to believe this concept, since I cannot see it, prove it myself, and furthermore, how do I know that the person who created this law really existed?

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

Firstly, we shall focus on the Design (or to use its philosophically technical term, the teleological argument). There are numerous variants of the Design argument, however we shall be focusing on Paley’s version (reference 1) of this theory. Paley’s version of the Design argument is based upon the idea that by looking around at certain features of the world (for example an inanimate object like a rock or say a living creature like dolphin or a person like myself) and theorising that they are too complex and intricate to randomly just manifest. They must have been created by a higher, more intelligent power and thus, if this is accepted as being so, then this proves beyond doubt that God exists.