Difference between revisions of "God/arguments for"
< God
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Argument from Design: more stuff; reformatted the argument) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==The List== | ==The List== | ||
===Argument from Design=== | ===Argument from Design=== | ||
| − | The universe is so complicated and amazing | + | {{excerpt|The argument goes:}} |
| + | The universe is so complicated and amazing that it couldn't possibly have arisen out of randomness; it seems to have been carefully designed – therefore there must have been [[Intelligent Design|a designer]]. | ||
| + | {{-excerpt}} | ||
====Responses==== | ====Responses==== | ||
* If God is capable of creating the universe, surely God is also pretty complicated. If God is also complicated, then wouldn't the same reasoning apply to Him, i.e. ''He'' must have been designed as well. Who did that? | * If God is capable of creating the universe, surely God is also pretty complicated. If God is also complicated, then wouldn't the same reasoning apply to Him, i.e. ''He'' must have been designed as well. Who did that? | ||
** If there is some reasoning whereby God does not need a Designer, then why can't that same reasoning be applied to the universe itself, without having to invoke the existence of an additional entity? | ** If there is some reasoning whereby God does not need a Designer, then why can't that same reasoning be applied to the universe itself, without having to invoke the existence of an additional entity? | ||
| − | * Perhaps God is actually quite simple – simple enough that He could have been created by some natural process. While this [[informal theory|theory]] removes the need for yet another Designer, it | + | * '''Counter''' to "God must be pretty complicated too": Perhaps God is actually quite simple – simple enough that He could have been created by some natural process. While this [[informal theory|theory]] removes the need for yet another Designer, it remains flawed: |
| − | ** It doesn't explain anything any better than existing scientific [[creation]] theories do, nor does it suggest any tests to try or evidence to look for | + | ** It still doesn't explain anything any better than existing scientific [[creation]] theories (which are based on the available evidence) do, nor does it suggest any tests to try or evidence to look for, much less base itself on any existing evidence |
** It still introduces an unnecessary element, i.e. God; if something simple can create something complex, why does that entity have to be conscious or have any of the other usual definitional attributes of God? | ** It still introduces an unnecessary element, i.e. God; if something simple can create something complex, why does that entity have to be conscious or have any of the other usual definitional attributes of God? | ||
** A simple God may not be compatible with the beliefs of most [[religion]]s, and hence would be ruled off-limits by believers. | ** A simple God may not be compatible with the beliefs of most [[religion]]s, and hence would be ruled off-limits by believers. | ||
Revision as of 23:59, 5 January 2007
Overview
This page documents reasonable arguments which have been put forth for the existence of God, and any responses or refutations to them.
The List
Argument from Design
| The argument goes: |
|
The universe is so complicated and amazing that it couldn't possibly have arisen out of randomness; it seems to have been carefully designed – therefore there must have been a designer. |
Responses
- If God is capable of creating the universe, surely God is also pretty complicated. If God is also complicated, then wouldn't the same reasoning apply to Him, i.e. He must have been designed as well. Who did that?
- If there is some reasoning whereby God does not need a Designer, then why can't that same reasoning be applied to the universe itself, without having to invoke the existence of an additional entity?
- Counter to "God must be pretty complicated too": Perhaps God is actually quite simple – simple enough that He could have been created by some natural process. While this theory removes the need for yet another Designer, it remains flawed:
- It still doesn't explain anything any better than existing scientific creation theories (which are based on the available evidence) do, nor does it suggest any tests to try or evidence to look for, much less base itself on any existing evidence
- It still introduces an unnecessary element, i.e. God; if something simple can create something complex, why does that entity have to be conscious or have any of the other usual definitional attributes of God?
- A simple God may not be compatible with the beliefs of most religions, and hence would be ruled off-limits by believers.