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 →
The “Problem of Evil” is one of the biggest philosophical challenges to a belief in God and is a major contributor to the rejection of Christianity. In fact, well-known biblical scholar and critic Bart Ehrman credits the problem of evil with his own loss of faith. We’ve addressed this topic in an earlier article, but a more comprehensive response is appropriate. The problem can be simply stated as follows:
If God is all-good, He would want to destroy evil
If God is all-powerful, He could destroy evil
Therefore, an all-good, all-powerful God does not exist
The logic seems sound on the surface. But can these really be our only options? Clearly, the problem of evil presents believers with a dilemma. Or does it? Continue reading →
Adoration of the Shepherds, Gerard van Honthorst, 1622
Christmas is the time of year when Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus, who they believe is the Messiah (or savior, literally “anointed one”) predicted in the Old Testament. According to Christian orthodoxy, Jesus is actually God incarnate. The doctrine of God becoming human is very clear throughout both the Old and New Testaments (e.g. Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 7:14, John 1:1-3, John 1:14, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:3, John 20:28).
Many non-Christians question how or if God could become a man. They have many good questions related to this such as: How is it possible for an infinite God to become a finite person? How can God be two people at the same time? Did He stop being God while He was a man? Why would God do this in the first place? As we approach Christmas, it is appropriate to reflect on these questions and “always be prepared to give an answer” to those who may ask why we believe what we do (1 Peter 3:15). Continue reading →
In chapter 5, Dawkins seeks to answer how “the anti-factual, counter-productive fantasies of religion” could have developed so universally among mankind from a Darwinian, evolutionary perspective. After discussing a few theories, Dawkins leans toward the idea that religion did not evolve because it was beneficial, but rather as a by-product of some other characteristic that contributed to survival. Continue reading →
The purpose of chapter 3 is to disprove the various arguments in favor of God’s existence. Dawkins addresses Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs, the ontological argument, and various arguments from beauty, personal experience, scripture, and admired religious scientists, along with Pascal’s Wager, and Bayesian probabilities. Continue reading →
Richard Dawkins is perhaps the most well-known of a new generation of activist atheists that includes Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens. The God Delusion is his attempt to disprove the “God Hypothesis” and he hopes that “religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”1.
With over 3 million copies sold, The God Delusion is probably one of the most widely read and influential atheist manifestos available. It’s definitely not a new book. However, we felt compelled to address it because it has been so widely read and because its arguments, even though they are poorly constructed, continue to influence people. Continue reading →
The question, “Who wrote the gospels?” is an important one. Church history and tradition—and many modern scholars—assert that the four gospels were written by eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry, death, and resurrection (Matthew and John) or by individuals with direct access to eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke). If they are correct, then the gospels are eyewitness testimony, and the idea that they transmit accurate historical accounts is strengthened.
Many critics, however, dispute the traditional authorship of the gospels. They cite a number of reasons for this, which we have been addressing through a series of articles on gospel authorship. Continue reading →