![]() Premise 3: It was not caused by the existence of: A. God-a transcendent, benevolent, Supercosmic Intellect. Premise 2: This fine-tuning was caused by either by the existence of: A. Premise 1: Our universe is exceptionally fine-tuned for the production of an immense variety of intrinsically valuable complex forms of life. Is the Biopic Teleological Argument for God's existence defensible? Consider the following premises of a strong Biopic Teleological Argument for God. Should we follow their lead? A Biopic Teleological Argument for God contends that all of life, not just intelligent life, requires God. Barrow and Tipler acknowledge the possibility of a Theistic Anthropic Cosmology, but they and most other Anthropic Cosmologists reject it. ![]() ![]() Today's Anthropic Cosmology presents us with dazzling indications that our world was deliberately designed by an intelligent and benevolent being of Divine proportions.Īmazingly, most Anthropic Cosmologists reject a theistic explanation of the data and favor some version of an infinite world-ensemble metaphysics, according to which a Iife-supporting world Iike ours occasionally happens accidentally in a infinite number of tries. Perhaps no one ever really believes in God without that intuition, but reflection may make it plausible.įrom the time of Plato, innumerable versions of the Argument from Design have been offered, criticized, defended, and attacked. The Argument from Design expresses the deep religious intuition that the ultimate cause of the universe knew what it was doing and did it well from commendable motives. A well-designed cosmos implies not only that God exists but also something about what God is like. The Teleological Argument or Argument from Design affirms that the observed order of the world provides powerful evidence both for the existence of God and for divine attributes like power, intelligence, and benevolence or good intentions. God's Purpose for the Universe and Cosmic Teleology Can a good case be made for God's existence based partly on the order or design of the universe disclosed to and through contemporary Anthropic or Biopic Cosmology? Granted that they will not be absolutely certain, can our inquiry produce theistic results that are rationally warranted and compelling? 1. We saw in Chapter Two that no strong case can be made for Naturalism, especially when measured by its own appeal to scientific method alone and in the ensuing chapters we saw that contemporary atheistic cosmologists fail to explain adequately the origin, order, and existence of our universe without God. Hick is too generous and kind toward Naturalism. Rather, it is whether one interpretation is more defensible rationally than another. Yet, the crucial issue is not whether all observations can be interpreted in a certain way. When he considered evidences for God drawn from our knowledge of the world, the philosophical theologian John Hick concluded that "The universe, as presently accessible to us, is religiously ambiguous in that it is capable of being interpreted intellectually and experientially in both religious and naturalistic ways." 1 Since all phenomena can be interpreted in both Theistic and Naturalistic terms, neither position can win a clear victory over the other, Hick contends. Two traditional arguments for God, the Teleological and the Cosmological, are of special interest to us because they directly invoke what we know about the cosmos. Rational evidence for God was expressed traditionally in philosophical arguments for God's existence. What reasons support the belief that God exists? Theistic Cosmology affirms that God caused the Big Bang, that God is THE necessary condition for its occurrence but this claim is true only if God exists. Likewise, God cannot explain our life-supporting world unless there actually is a God. ![]() No appeal to infinitely many worlds, either antecedent or contemporary, can explain the existence and order of our life-supporting world unless infinitely many worlds actually exist. Edwards Eleven: The Biopic Teleological Argument ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |