Given the Arguments from Design, do you believe that the creation of the earth supports the existence of God? *IMPORTANT!* The question here is not whether God exists, but whether or not this can be proven by the existence of the earth.
The design argument supports no more than the existence of one or more organizing principles. quote]
agreed!
only if one can show beyond all reasonable doubt that the Earth's formation required God.Given the Arguments from Design, do you believe that the creation of the earth supports the existence of God?
It can't be proven, but it is certainly possible that the Earth exhibits features that point to a divine Creator. As it happens, no such features have been found. Indeed, there is no evidence for the existence of any deities, Creators or otherwise.*IMPORTANT!* The question here is not whether God exists, but whether or not this can be proven by the existence of the earth.
only if one can show beyond all reasonable doubt that the Earth's formation required God.
It can't be proven, but it is certainly possible that the Earth exhibits features that point to a divine Creator. As it happens, no such features have been found. Indeed, there is no evidence for the existence of any deities, Creators or otherwise.
The laws of physics are so "finely tuned," in fact, that as far as our most sophisticated instruments can yet determine, there exists but one planet in the however-many-billions-of-light-years range of SETI sensors that contains life of any kind.Ill be the odd one out who'll say otherwise then. From what I have read there no 100% proof by this argument, then again there is no full 100% proof of anything except your existance. I do believe though that the laws of physics seem so 'fine tuned' that the probablity of it being by chance is so amazingly low. Ill probably give more detail on this at a later time.
I am skeptical that opposing conclusions are equally reasonable.The most I can say without that is that a person of normal intelligence could reasonably conclude from the appearance of design in the universe that a supreme being created it. That person, learning that the universe began, could also reasonably believe it was caused.
However, another person of equal intelligence can reasonably conclude that the seeming order and mathematical precision of the universe are a result of naturalistic processes; and that finitude does not imply creation.
I don't think she means it in the true epistemological sense .I could not answer the poll because I do not know your definition of "proof."
How does the appearance of design in the universe imply a Designer? How does a beginning of the universe imply a Causer?The most I can say without that is that a person of normal intelligence could reasonably conclude from the appearance of design in the universe that a supreme being created it. That person, learning that the universe began, could also reasonably believe it was caused.
Why would two reasonable, intelligent people come to contradictory conclusions?However, another person of equal intelligence can reasonably conclude that the seeming order and mathematical precision of the universe are a result of naturalistic processes; and that finitude does not imply creation.
Premise 1 is misleading. We observe elements of design in comparison to things we know were designed and designed by a particular designer: human intelligence. Those limitations do not permit scaling up to organisms or ecosystems or planets or galaxies or universes.1. That which appears to be designed has usually been designed.
2. Things which begin are (or give every appearance of being) caused.
3. Reason is a process, not a result.
I disagree. The only things in this universe which we know are designed are man-made objects. All other structure in the universe, from the stars to our cells to the atoms, can be shown to form spontaneously without intelligent interference.1. That which appears to be designed has usually been designed.
I disagree. There are those things which 'begin' which don't have a cause. I shall once again wheel out the Casimir effect and its underlying principle, spontaneous generation (aka, 'the quantum foam'), as an example.2. Things which begin are (or give every appearance of being) caused.
Indeed. But reason doesn't change sporadically. It is by reasoned thought that we know 1 + 1 = 2.3. Reason is a process, not a result.