Post by Josh on Jan 29, 2007 20:09:31 GMT -8
Excerpted from my article, "Does God Exist?"
Design Argument (Teleological)
The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either law, chance, or design
It is not due to law or chance
Therefore, it is due to design
What is the argument for design?
The universe is highly fine-tuned for life. For example, there are over 75 known characteristics about the universe that must be fine-tuned with incredible precision: see Hugh Ross' list on the Reasons to Believe Website.
If any one of these factors were off by a small amount, life would not be possible.
In addition, our solar system is also extremely fine-tuned. Scientists have found over 150 characteristics about our solar system that must be fine-tuned with equally incredible precision for life to exist: see Hugh Ross' list on the Reasons to Believe Website.
Please note that for the last several years, these lists of characteristics have been growing at a steady rate: different fields of science are constantly discoveries new finely- tuned parameters.
This fine-tuning poses two challenges to the naturalist (or materialist: those that believe that all that exists is the physical world of matter):
1) The probability that all these factors should come together in such a precise way so that life could exist anywhere in the universe has been calculated conservatively to less than 1 chance in 10144 (or one chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) (see Ross).
2) The time necessary for such impossible odds to come together is extremely limited anyway. If the universe had always been, then the naturalist explanation would have more breathing room (but not much more!)
Not only does the universe display fine-tuning, but it also displays intricate design. Systems in the universe and in the human body, for instance, are far morecomplicated than the most complex machines humans have created. Since we would never assume a machine could be assembled by random chance, why should we assume that the more complex systems in the natural world arose by chance? Rather, we should assume they were designed by an intelligent Designer as well.
What are some typical arguments against design and what are their rebuttals? (Why I Am pp. 73-74, Baker Encyclopedia p. 275)
David Hume argued that Paley’s design argument (the watchmaker argument) was a bad analogy because watches aren’t like what we find in nature. He assumed systems in nature were simpler. He was wrong- systems in nature have been revealed in the last 100 years to be far more complex than any human machine.
Darwinists argue that there is only an appearance of design, but that natural selection can explain it away. However, Darwinists have consistently failed to explain Irreducible Complexity problems, such as how a complex organ such as an eye could ever evolve by natural selection (just one example).
Full article link:
setup.finalweb.net/site/cpage.asp?sec_id=2432&cpage_id=3686
Design Argument (Teleological)
The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either law, chance, or design
It is not due to law or chance
Therefore, it is due to design
What is the argument for design?
The universe is highly fine-tuned for life. For example, there are over 75 known characteristics about the universe that must be fine-tuned with incredible precision: see Hugh Ross' list on the Reasons to Believe Website.
If any one of these factors were off by a small amount, life would not be possible.
In addition, our solar system is also extremely fine-tuned. Scientists have found over 150 characteristics about our solar system that must be fine-tuned with equally incredible precision for life to exist: see Hugh Ross' list on the Reasons to Believe Website.
Please note that for the last several years, these lists of characteristics have been growing at a steady rate: different fields of science are constantly discoveries new finely- tuned parameters.
This fine-tuning poses two challenges to the naturalist (or materialist: those that believe that all that exists is the physical world of matter):
1) The probability that all these factors should come together in such a precise way so that life could exist anywhere in the universe has been calculated conservatively to less than 1 chance in 10144 (or one chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) (see Ross).
2) The time necessary for such impossible odds to come together is extremely limited anyway. If the universe had always been, then the naturalist explanation would have more breathing room (but not much more!)
Not only does the universe display fine-tuning, but it also displays intricate design. Systems in the universe and in the human body, for instance, are far morecomplicated than the most complex machines humans have created. Since we would never assume a machine could be assembled by random chance, why should we assume that the more complex systems in the natural world arose by chance? Rather, we should assume they were designed by an intelligent Designer as well.
What are some typical arguments against design and what are their rebuttals? (Why I Am pp. 73-74, Baker Encyclopedia p. 275)
David Hume argued that Paley’s design argument (the watchmaker argument) was a bad analogy because watches aren’t like what we find in nature. He assumed systems in nature were simpler. He was wrong- systems in nature have been revealed in the last 100 years to be far more complex than any human machine.
Darwinists argue that there is only an appearance of design, but that natural selection can explain it away. However, Darwinists have consistently failed to explain Irreducible Complexity problems, such as how a complex organ such as an eye could ever evolve by natural selection (just one example).
Full article link:
setup.finalweb.net/site/cpage.asp?sec_id=2432&cpage_id=3686