The teleological argument, for Egor
Posted: 16 February 2012 11:35 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

This one is probably my favorite, since I think it is one of the stronger arguments for God and butts heads with the cutting edge of science. Here it is:

A teleological or design argument[1][2][3] is an a posteriori argument for the existence of God based on apparent design and purpose in the universe.
...
From the 1990s, creation science was rebranded as intelligent design, presenting the teleological argument while avoiding naming the designer with the aim of presenting this as science and getting it taught in public school science classes. In 2005, a U.S. Federal Court ruled that intelligent design is a religious argument and is not science, and was being used to give pseudoscientific support for creationism, the religious belief in a god-like designer.

-wikipedia

How life came to be, from non-life, is one part of the response (which I consider to be settled in court, although we can always discuss why the decision was what it was). The other part is how our universe seems to have been fine-tuned for life. I actually agree with this - small changes to our physical constants can make life impossible. Interesting side note - in computer science, there is a similar phenomenon in systems called cellular automata - some “rules” produce automata with very interesting and dynamic interactions, sometimes even being conducive to the emergence of replicators, but tweaking those rules even slightly can create a chaotic mess of “soup” or make the automata degrade into nothingness. Nonetheless, new evidence at the forefront of physics is pointing to the theory of the multiverse being true. If it is, the multiverse may contain perhaps an infinity of universes with different rules, and so we should not find it surprising that our universe has these rules.

I will admit that this, even if true, is not proof of God’s non-existence, but remember that non-belief in God (not necessarily rejection of the possibility of his existence), is still atheism.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2012 11:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15343
Joined  2006-02-14

The argument from design was historically the strongest argument for God’s existence, until the late 19th century and the advent of Darwinian evolution. After that point, most scientists became agnostic or atheist.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile