I recently discovered a very helpful site which "offers candid, straightforward reasons to believe in the existence of God." On a page titled "Is there a God?" the author, Marilyn Adamson, steps us through the reasons why we don't have to just "believe" any more, we can underpin that belief with "reasons that suggest" that God exists. What a splendid idea! Let's take a look...
I'm a little flummoxed by Marilyn's next comment: "If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away." If we can rationalize or explain away the evidence, it doesn't say much for the quality of the evidence. But notwithstanding the rather off-putting nature of this disclaimer let's move on and look at each piece of evidence in the spirit of a true believer looking for support for her belief.
"1. The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today."
Hmm. Can I just say "No it doesn't?" OK, no, that's not enough.
The true believer could just ask a simple question: why does it point to a deliberate Designer?
A true believer with an open mind could just as easily listen to an argument that the complexity of our planet "points" to a wonderful system of causal laws, far more exciting and beautiful, and much less improbable than the idea of a supernatural being possessing such overarching ability and complexity that he can create something as complex as the Earth. In fact a vast body of evidence accumulated over the last few hundred years supports exactly those kinds of causal laws. That's a lot of pointing.
Unfortunately for our poor true believer, there's no way to show why Marilyn's view of where this complexity "points" is any better than the alternative view. In fact, quite the opposite.
An open minded true believer might also work out a logical objection to this idea that something complex "points" to a designer. If the Earth is so complex that it can only have been created by God, presumably God is pretty complex too. If she accepts Marilyn's argument that something as complex as the Earth needs a designer, then presumably something as complex as God needs a designer too. And that designer would itself need its own designer. This argument kinda goes on for ever: God 1, God 2, ... God n, God n+1...a plethora of Gods. That's not to say that there are dozens of Gods out there; its just to say that this argument from complexity simply doesn't work, unless you believe in an infinite number of Gods. It just doesn't. [Of course there is the argument that, well, God is, er, different, so he doesn't need a designer. Well, in that case why can't we argue that the universe is, er, different too, and it doesn't need a designer? Like I said, this argument from complexity just doesn't work.]
So, we've considered Reason Number 1 from the view of an open-minded believer: it doesn't seem to have provided much of an underpinning, but fortunately, she's a true believer, so that doesn't matter. Hopefully Reason Number 2 will help our believer a little more...
I'm a little flummoxed by Marilyn's next comment: "If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away." If we can rationalize or explain away the evidence, it doesn't say much for the quality of the evidence. But notwithstanding the rather off-putting nature of this disclaimer let's move on and look at each piece of evidence in the spirit of a true believer looking for support for her belief.
"1. The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today."
Hmm. Can I just say "No it doesn't?" OK, no, that's not enough.
The true believer could just ask a simple question: why does it point to a deliberate Designer?
A true believer with an open mind could just as easily listen to an argument that the complexity of our planet "points" to a wonderful system of causal laws, far more exciting and beautiful, and much less improbable than the idea of a supernatural being possessing such overarching ability and complexity that he can create something as complex as the Earth. In fact a vast body of evidence accumulated over the last few hundred years supports exactly those kinds of causal laws. That's a lot of pointing.
Unfortunately for our poor true believer, there's no way to show why Marilyn's view of where this complexity "points" is any better than the alternative view. In fact, quite the opposite.
An open minded true believer might also work out a logical objection to this idea that something complex "points" to a designer. If the Earth is so complex that it can only have been created by God, presumably God is pretty complex too. If she accepts Marilyn's argument that something as complex as the Earth needs a designer, then presumably something as complex as God needs a designer too. And that designer would itself need its own designer. This argument kinda goes on for ever: God 1, God 2, ... God n, God n+1...a plethora of Gods. That's not to say that there are dozens of Gods out there; its just to say that this argument from complexity simply doesn't work, unless you believe in an infinite number of Gods. It just doesn't. [Of course there is the argument that, well, God is, er, different, so he doesn't need a designer. Well, in that case why can't we argue that the universe is, er, different too, and it doesn't need a designer? Like I said, this argument from complexity just doesn't work.]
So, we've considered Reason Number 1 from the view of an open-minded believer: it doesn't seem to have provided much of an underpinning, but fortunately, she's a true believer, so that doesn't matter. Hopefully Reason Number 2 will help our believer a little more...
No comments:
Post a Comment