Originally posted by seer
View Post
Second, he creates a false dichotomy, pitting "pure randomness" against "by design." It's almost as if he sees the two choices as "someone rolls a dice with a bazillion faces" vs. "someone systematically designs something." The universe operates according to repeatable, predictable, intelligible principles. That something is "intelligible" does not imply mean it was created by intelligence - it implies that it can be understood by an intelligence. How did these principles arise? We have no idea. It could be that it is impossible for a universe to exist that does NOT conform to these principles, hence the structure of our universe. It is possible that we have had an infinity of universes of various types. In an infinity of time, everything that can happen will happen, ergo the universe we have. And there are other possibilities.
So the argument as a "proof for the existence of god" simply doesn't work. It attempts to make an argument on premises that cannot be shown to be true, and makes several logical leaps that are simply unsustainable. All of the so-called "proofs" for the existence of god have similar flaws. As I said, 20 flawed arguments doe snot a compelling picture paint.
Comment