Logic & Light has previously explored the powerful evidence for God offered by the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments. And while these arguments offer a strong, logical, and scientific basis for belief in God, they do not tell us much about who God is or which religion has the correct view of Him. So, we now turn our attention to those arguments that begin to build the case for a belief in the specific God of the Bible. Continue reading
As with the Cosmological Argument, we will now examine the primary claims against the Teleological Argument… Continue reading
After examining the strength of the Cosmological Argument, we now turn our attention to the Teleological Argument or the Argument from Design. The Teleological Argument is just as compelling as the Cosmological and when combined with it, provide a very strong basis for belief in God.
And just like with the Cosmological Argument, it is firmly rooted in what we know to be scientifically true. It is not born of ignorance or some God of the Gaps reasoning. Rather it is entirely fact-based and uses the naturalists’ supposed ally, scientific discovery, to argue against Naturalism. It was, in fact, largely the strength of the Teleological Argument that converted well-known atheist philosopher, author, and debater Anthony Flew to a belief in God, as he details in his 2007 book “There is a God.”
The Teleological Argument Summarized
The Teleological Argument can be summarized as follows:
- The laws of physics, chemistry, and biology appear non-random and “finely tuned” to allow for the universe’s existence and to produce life
- Both the universe and life exhibit “specified complexity”
- Apparent fine-tuning and specified complexity indicate a purposeful design to the universe
- A purposeful design requires an ultimate Designer, which must be God
In part one, we examined the scientific and philosophical rationale that supports God as the cause of the universe. However, since there are many intelligent, rational, scientific atheists, one may suppose that the case is hardly undeniable. And as you would assume, there are many responses provided by naturalists to refute the Cosmological Argument. So we will look at the primary arguments and assess their validity. In the end, it will be clear that God remains not only the most reasonable explanation for the universe, but the only intellectually honest option. Continue reading
Two of the most effective evidences for the existence of God are the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments. Logic and Light has touched on both of these in earlier posts, but it is important to look at each one specifically to fully understand their strength, and to refute the counter-claims of those that reject them. So, over a series of articles, Logic and Light will explore these two arguments, starting with the Cosmological. Continue reading
One of the most common objections to the existence of God is that it is simply unscientific. A belief in God is just an ignorant relic of the past, when more primitive people invoked the names of various gods to explain the things they didn’t understand.
In other words, “God” was simply something people used to fill a gap in their knowledge. But as we have learned more and become better educated, we have discovered natural causes to previously unknown phenomenon, leaving God fewer and fewer places to “hide.” Consequently, even the few remaining gaps that remain can no longer serve as an argument in favor of God, since history proves that they will eventually be filled with natural explanations, even if they are currently unknown. Therefore, we can finally lay this “god of the gaps” to rest. Continue reading
Many skeptics love to talk about the “war” between Science and Christianity. They characterize Christianity as one of the great evils of the world perpetrating ignorance and superstition while Science is in the noble and relentless pursuit of truth at all costs. Of course, because of Christianity’s vast reach and power, it has persecuted and suppressed Science in an ultimately fruitless attempt to hide its own fallacies. At least that’s how the story goes. Continue reading
Few issues within the faith-based arena cause as much division as the question of creation vs. evolution. The popular stereotypes portrayed in the media, and unfortunately accepted by many, are those of the religious “Bible thumper” that unquestionably accepts the biblical account of divine, special creation versus the more educated and objective scientist who “follows the evidence wherever it leads” and supports evolution. As is typical, however, the stereotypes are far from accurate. In this article, we will review the evidence and show how an objective scientific view should actually oppose evolution and support special creation.
First, we have to define the sides of the debate. For purposes of this article, we are focusing on creation vs. evolution in terms of biology. The similar issues related to cosmology, geology, etc. are completely separate from this discussion. As such, the issue of the age of the earth and universe will be discussed at a later time. While these topics are often discussed together, they are actually separate. Continue reading
Many people labor under the misconception that all Christians believe the universe to be a mere 6,000 years old, created by God in the span of 6 days. After all, that’s what the Bible says, right? (Not quite, but we’ll save that for another post). At any rate, those same people often perceive Christians as ignorant and irrational beings with an axe to grind against science, most likely because, in their minds, science has been systematically dismantling Christians’ belief in a “God-myth” for the last several hundred years. Continue reading