More handpicked essays just for you.
Argument about the design argument
God and the controversial existence of god
Philosophical arguments for if god exists
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Sally Morem’s position is that God (Judeo-Christian) does not exist, and uses three aspects of the question to analyze to help support her stance in the question. The aspects that she uses are the Argument from Design, Argument from Morality, and the Problem of Evil. Morem goes on to summarize the Argument from Design; the universe, and everything within, exhibit too many complex elements of deliberate and thoughtful design that could not have come into being without a creator. For a good design, it needs a Designer who fabricated, planned, and put it into action precisely as it was desired. She states, “Does the universe have a good design? Could we ever tell? Perhaps not, but we do manage to see pattern in the cosmos and nature”. How can we believe that there is a Designer, if what are assumed to be his works cannot be …show more content…
Such as diseases, galaxies running into one another, and dying lifeforms (extinct species). According to scientists, they suspect that whatever order we do see, happened because the universe lifted itself up on its own, instead of a Creator making everything happen with the words “Let there be light”. Morem begins the Argument From Morality with a C.S Lewis quote, “… I find that I do not exist on my own, that I am under a law, that somebody or something wants me to behave in a certain way”, and asks “If you believe God exists and that He has something to do with the existence of morality, does God establish morality or enforce it?”. If God does establish morality, He can make morality anything that he wants it to be. If rape and murder are in God’s moral commands, then a loyal believer could rape and murder and call it doing good. Or, if a loyal believer believes that God only enforces a moral code, then morality would exist with command or not, and God ceases to be the omnipotent
Thomas Aquinas, a leading scholar of the Middle Ages, argued that “Everything in the universe has a cause. Trace those causes back and there must have been a First Cause that triggered everything else. God is that First Cause.” This was known as his “First Cause” argument.
To infer God’s existence by ‘Argument from Design’, Rachel has taken the example of amazing things that are present in nature around us such as eye, the most complicated part of body system, the way eye is attached to the human body and the phenomenon by which it performs it function is astounding and such types of creations cannot be occurred randomly by chance. Although, it is only the creation of some intelligent designer. Whereas, in the case of evolution and intelligent design, the author put forward the “Theory of Natural Selection” given by Darwin. In this theory, Darwin stated that evolution occurred among the species due to the changes in their environmental conditions and to adopt these changes, certain changes take place among the specific characteristics of the species in response to such environmental conditions. Therefore, through the process of natural selection, organisms passed their newly adapted characteristics to their off springs and then new generations born with such characteristics which help them to survive and reproduce in altered environmental conditions.
There are several forms of the design argument. The general form of the design argument starts with the basic idea that certain parts of the universe are such that they indicate that they have been designed and have a purpose. The argument uses this fact to prove the existence of an ultimate designer, in particular, God.
An argument is defined as presenting reasons for a conclusion in order to convince an audience of a certain point of view and an explanation as a clarification of why something has happened. An argument contains some form of an opinion while an explanation holds only facts, this does not mean that a well-constructed argument is not without facts. The second piece, Lisa Fullam’s, Of God and the Case for Unintelligent Design is evidently the argument. The title itself, “unintelligent design” proves this reasoning, she provides facts/reasoning for her audience to believe that the notion of intelligent design is unintelligent in and of itself because nature has too many flaws. Fullam provides facts about rabbit digestion, horse digestion, mammalian testicles, and human back ache followed by her opinions. First, to Elizabeth Bumiller, who doesn’t take a side while providing facts for each side, Fullam feelings strong about her opinions, her sarcastic questions help the audience tap
Dr. William Lane Craig supports the idea of existence of God. He gives six major arguments, in order to defend his position. The first argument is quite fare, Craig says that God is the best reason of existence of everything. He gives the idea, that the debates between all the people, cannot reach the compromise, because the best explanation of the reasons of existence of everything is God, and nothing can be explained without taking Him into consideration. The second argument of Craig is from a cosmological point of view: he says that the existence of the universe is the best proof of the existence of God. Because, the process of the creation of the universe is so ideally harmonious, that it seems impossible to appear accidentally. The third argument is about the fine tuning of the universe. The universe is designed in such a way that people always have aim of life, and the life of people and the nature are interconnected. The fourth argument of Dr. Craig is about the morality: God is the best explanation of the existence of the morality and moral values in people’s lives. The...
Moreover, Stern’s explains how God is the creator of all things he is the uncreated [author’s italicization]. Furthermore, he gives in details God’s unfailing love for his creation by showing creation right from wrong. “According to the New Testament, he is love. His love is expressed, in part, in providing law
From a Christian perspective there is only one creator that can successfully conceive life, and this is God. Obviously if God is not present in this creating process, and science has instigated the responsibility, the failure of the creation is inevitable. Science cannot create balanced emotions, socially imposed morals, or a soul. Thusly, such a creation would have no moral compass from which to gage the appropriateness of its reactions or behaviors. The person responsible for attempting a god-like role in the name of science should bear the responsibility of whatever may result from such a creation.
...cartes would have said according to Pascal, all God did, was put a fillip in things to get them going. Look at all that came of it; it is amazing. Before humans had an understanding of how the universe arrived at its current state, they could see that it was divinely inspired and turned to God for explanation.
For example, in the Ten Commandments, God commands us not to murder, but before that command murder was neither right nor wrong. It was just murder. “Morality simply did not exist.” In turn, the first option implies that God did not invent the moral laws, but knew the ones already set in place. They then just commanded us to obey those laws, but, like Shafer-Landau stated, “then these reasons, and not God’s commands, [would be] what makes actions right or wrong.” I truthfully find the first option as the most reasonable, but I think that that opinion may be bias since I don 't believe that God
He says design requires a designer, the works of nature also requires a designer and that designer is God. From this Paley creates his four arguments for God’s existence from analogies, which are argument from design is based on experience, argument from design assumes that we are different in kind, but same in degree, argument from design argues from mind/thought to design, and argument from design assumes that all things are created by matter.... ... middle of paper ... ...
form of moral nihilism arises. ”Without God ... everything is permitted now.”[1] That is, if
According to Edward Wilson, the desire of mankind to explain their origins has led to three dominant worldviews that attempt to explain human existence and present condition. These three worldviews are God-centered religion, political behaviorism, and scientific humanism. However, these views fail to recognize another increasingly popular worldview known as Intelligent Design. Because the theory of Intelligent Design hinges on the premise that human existence is the direct consequence of a supernatural “intelligent designer” who designed the world and all of its complex organisms, that in turn are made up of complex parts designed purposefully by this “intelligent designer”, Wilson has lumped this theory in with the God-centered creation worldview (par. 12). However, proponents of Intelligent Design differ from traditional Creationists in the idea that they are attempting to put a scientific stamp on their theory. Proponents of this theory conduct scientific research to ferret out facts that scientifically support their theory. As Intelligent Design attempts to meld Creationism and Darwinism, it certainly should be addressed as an independent worldview from those examined by Wilson. As individual principals go, there are none so staunchly supported and stubbornly held to as those regarding the beginning of life. Because religion relies on the blind faith that mankind epitomizes God’s creative power and our present condition has likewise been guided by his hand, political behaviorism relies on the theory that humans are simply blank slates, free from the bindings of religious dogma and evolving genetic imprinting and are able to be molded and imprinted with the “best” political ideals, and scientific humanism relies on the ...
Talking on both sides of the debate, each side feels as though the other has no scientific reasoning come up with their theory. In reading the article written by Shipman, the evolutionists believe that intelligent design has no concrete evidence on how the world was crea...
If (1), then the content of morality is solely dependent on God’s whim; rendering morality nothing more than blind obedience to divine arbitration. If (2), then the action is evil independently of God, in which case God is simply redundant. Moreover, if the theist claims that morality is not arbitrary then God must recognize a moral code superior to Himself – in this case, God’s sovereignty devolves into subordination. Therefore, recognizing that humans have the agency of freewill, it must be the case that our motivations to be moral are independent of God’s
When God created the world “by faith is we understand that the world were framed by the word of God, so that the things which we see how did not come into being out of things which had previously appeared” (Athanasius...