The Design Argument for the Existence of God 1of2

An argument for God's existence based on the design and order we see in the world.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Christian
• Apologetics
• Bible
• Religion

[ultramerton]

@SuperMimicKing

Correct. I think we're well in agreement. ;)

[SuperMimicKing]

@ultramerton

It depends on the probability of life existing at all. For example we can say that it's unlikely for us to turn out exactly this way, which is true, but the Anthropic Principle refutes that. But it doesn't refute the improbability that we exist at all.

[ultramerton]

@SuperMimicKing

Yes, your first sentence is accurate: "life could still exist if something were altered." The Anthropic Principle does refute the teleological argument though, which claims that the physical constants are evidence that life was predestined. As you said, the Anthropic Principle shows that we cannot hypothesize the probability of life's existence.

[SuperMimicKing]

@ultramerton

Actually I agree with the definition you've presented there, if it's saying that life could still exist if something were altered, it would just exist differently. It just doesn't refute the teleological argument because it says nothing about the odds of life existing at all. However to say that just because we exist, we have to exist, which is how I've seen the anthropic principle interpreted by some people, is wrong.

[ultramerton]

@SuperMimicKing

Correct, I apologize if I gave the impression that our existence is determined.

[SuperMimicKing]

@ultramerton

As far as the Anthropic Principle goes, The argument doesn't prove that we have to exist, only that we do exist.

[ultramerton]

1) The Anthropic Principle refutes the Fine Tuning argument: since our existence requires the physical constants to be as we observe them, we cannot assume existence is impossible if these were altered.

2) Complex, Specified Information has been proven false. Complexity has been created by unintelligent means several times in the past: energy to matter, matter to stars, abiogenesis, etc.

3) Irreducible Complexity has been proven false. Search the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting cascade.

[419Films]

Using the building of an inanimate object to refute a well studied biological process is utterly ridiculous, imho.

[gardener68]

Speculation and misrepresentation do not constitute proof. Simple belief in a god is one thing, but an inferred belief based on principles we may not yet understand cannot be justified. The design argument is a failure because god is still not demonstrated, only the unjustified assumption because not all aspects of nature are known.

[KnotL00]

@paigelaperriere Who said humans came from nothing? Our species comes from billions of years of evolution. Really not something one could describe as nothing.