Argument:

1. Left to chance, it is very unlikely that the universe would have developed in the exact way necessary to sustain human life as it is.
2. The universe has developed in such a way.
3. Therefore, the development of the universe was not left up to chance.
4. Therefore, the universe had a designer.
5. God is this designer.
6. Therefore, God exists.

Objections:

1. Left to chance, all possible universes have an equal probability of existing.
1. Thus, the universe that has developed in such a way as to sustain human life is just as probable as any other possible universe.
2. Keeping in mind the vast size of the universe and the great amount of time that it has existed, it is far too anthropocentric to think of the conditions for human life as a criterion that holds such sway over the entire cosmos.
3. If there is a very large number of possible universes existing simultaneously (cf. the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics), then the universes that allow human life simply exist along with all others and are not special in an objective sense.
4. The Argument from Design is insidiously anthropocentric. It purports to make a crucial claim about objective reality based on the human experience of order and disorder.
1. It observes that human beings have the experience of building and designing things to function in a particular way.
2. It then observes that the universe functions in a particular way (that allows human existence).
3. It concludes, then, that the universe must have been designed just as human artifacts have been designed.
5. The Argument from Design attempts to make a crucial objective claim by subjective means.
1. Consider a lottery. Each possible universe corresponds one combination of numbers.
2. All combinations of numbers have the same probability.
1. Objection: Not all universes may be equally likely.
1. Response: Then this universe is simply the one that exists. Perhaps because it is more likely than others. Perhaps not.
3. One combination of numbers is drawn.
4. Objectively, there is nothing ’special’ about this combination.
5. Subjectively, however, (e.g. to a ticket-holder) this combination may seem very important.
6. It is absurd, though, to think that because a person holds a winning ticket the lottery is not random, even considering how improbable it is for any particular ticket to win.
6. The universe simply exists as it does. If it did not sustain human life than human beings would not be around arguing for the viability of atheism. If the universe were some other way, then it would simply be some other way. There is absolutely no need to posit God on account of this.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 9th, 2006 at 9:01 PM and is filed under arguments, philosophy, theology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.