Weinberg's A Designer Universe Essay

He states that since the series of dependent beings couldn’t be caused by any external or internal source, that it would have to be cause “absolutely by nothing”. He then states that this is a “contradiction to be done in time; and because duration in this case makes no difference.” He also states that it is a “contradiction to suppose it done from eternity.” Since the universe has parts that come into existence at one occasion and not another, it must have a cause. There could supposedly be an infinite regress of causes if there was evidence for such, but lacking such evidence, God must exist as the cause.

In his third argument about arguing from mind to design, he states that using the mind as a representation is only a small part of universe (Paley, 1802, 197). For example, a watch must have had a watchmaker because such a complex idea and mechanism could not have just come from nature. A creator with prior knowledge of the watch must have created it. Therefore, the universe must have had a creator. This creator was God.

In chapter 6, Richard opens up with ultimate origins. He suggests that the theistic view should be considered in the work of scientists to probe the origin of life in the distant past. Richard speaks of Pasteur’s demolition of the spontaneous generation theory, which created a problem for those who saw the world from a naturalistic perspective. Pasteur stood on God being the creator as the only alternative. There seemed to be a battle between scientific reasoning and the theistic view. Yet, scientific reasoning involves faith as well. Some of the major problems with scientific views are: questions of oxygen being present in the atmosphere; the lack of geological evidence for the primordial soup of organic compounds or protocells; the high degree of investigator interference in prebiotic simulation experiments; and difficulties in imagining the jump from biopolymers and protocells to the first living and reproducing cell. Scientists Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen states a distinction

In his discussion of the argument from design, which he links with teleological principles, the author refers to the concept of design in a way that alludes to the conviction that there are certain divine manifestations in the world that are so perfect that they must revolve around a grand architect who conceived them to be that way. Therefore, he says that proving such an argument requires "indisputable examples of design or purpose" (McCloskey, 1968, p. 64). However, this standard of indisputability that McCloskey is holding this argument to,

1. The cosmos as we know it demands that there be an intelligent designer behind it.

The argument also indulges in an infinite regression. It assumes that a transcendent god created the entire universe. However, it fails to account for what created the god. As stated in the lecture slides, a committee of lesser beings may have created the god, but that begs the question about who created the committee. One could object to this idea and believe that god has always existed, transcending time and reality itself. Once again, however, this logic is just as applicable to the universe. The universe is as capable of existing forever as a god is.

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

Ultimately, Paley’s argument uses an inductive argument to suggest that all things with properties of intelligence and complexity must have an intelligent designer who designs them for a specific purpose.

There are two basic theories in this debate. The first is the historical default, the creation model of origins. This theory maintains that the intricate design infiltrates all things, which implies a designer. The second theory is the more recent, atheistic explanation, the evolution model of origins. This theory suggests that the intricate design infiltrates all things and is a product of random chance and excessive time.

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.

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

There are many topics that science and religion have opposing views on and continue to debate. One of these subjects that has received a great deal of attention and has placed an enormous wedge between the two realms is the varying opinions concerning the creation of the universe. For nearly a century, scientists have explained this phenomenon with the Big Bang theory, whereas spiritual thinkers have long placed their faith in the Genesis creation account. Both submit valid arguments, however, it is ultimately up to each individual to decide which testimony to accept as truth and to consider if it is possible that both opinions could co-exist.

The second argument is for the notion that the existence of God can be demonstrated. It states that everything has a cause. He claims that by using the theory of cause and effect we can demonstrate the existence of God. If we say that every effect has a cause, we can go further and further to infinity. But because of our own logic, we know that this is not true. We know that it must end somewhere. That somewhere is a first cause, and that cause is God. This is very similar to the idea of the unmoved mover. He goes on to say that through the effects, we can demonstrate that God does exist, but we cannot know what God is like.

As for Paley’s theory he believes that nature must have a designer and that the designer is God, he believed we all have a purpose and everything that we do has purpose. Paley says that with our abilities to create artifacts that resemble the universe then there has to be a creator of the universe and everything that is in it. Either nature or some of its parts have design like properties they show evidence of being

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.