Design Argument - universe is too complex to evolve on it's on, a designer (God) was behind such a thing.
Although there are variations, the basic argument can be stated as follows:
- X is too (complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, and/or beautiful) to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
- Therefore, X must have been created by a (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being.
- God is that (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being.
- Therefore, God exists.
X usually stands for the universe, the
evolution process,
humankind, a given animal
species, or a particular organ like the
eye or capability like
language in humans.
X may also stand for the fundamental constants of the
universe like
physical constants and
physical law. Sometimes this argument is also based on the
anthropic principle that these constants seem
tuned specifically to allow intelligent life
"as we know it" to evolve.
While most of the classic forms of this argument are linked to
monotheism, some versions of the argument may substitute for
God a lesser
demiurge, multiple
gods and/or goddesses, or perhaps
extraterrestrials as cause for natural phenomena, although reapplication of the argument might still imply an
ultimate cause. One can also leave the question of the attributes of a hypothesized "Designer" completely open, yielding the following simple formulation:
- Complexity implies a designer.
- The universe is highly complex.
- Therefore, the universe has a Designer.
Newton and the atheist
Isaac Newton, had invited a scientist-friend of his, a man who professed atheism to dine with him. Seeking to corner his friend with his own arguments, Newton placed a model of the solar system on his table and invited his friend to view it. Upon examining it, Newton’s friend exclaimed, “what a marvellous craftsmanship!” Who fashioned this exquisite model?” Newton replied casually, “This model has no maker, it materialised from nothing.” Disbelief writen large on his face, the friend asked, “What do you mean?” To this, Newton smiled and replied, “How can you my friend, insist that this model has to have a maker, while vehemently denying the existence of a divine Creator?”
Moral: If a model of the solar system must have a creator then what about the gigantic solar system itself? Let us worship that Creator who has created you and me.
Causation argument states that someone had to have "caused" everything to move. Someone has to be the initial person to give it a "push" in order for everything to set in motion. And that someone has to be the Big Cheeze behind all this.
Plato argued that motion in the world and in the cosmos was "imparted motion" that would have required some kind of "self-originated motion" to set it in motion and to maintain the motion.
Aristotle (c. 384–322 BCE) also put forth the idea of a first cause, often referred to as the "Prime Mover" or "
Unmoved Mover"
For Aristotle too, as for Plato, the underlying "stuff" of the universe always was in existence and always would be.
Bedouin's logic prove the existence of God
Once, a Bedouin was asked what made an unsophisticated man like him believe in Allah.
Bedouin: "Do you see these marks in the sand?"
Man: "Yes."
Bedouin: "What do they tell you?"
Man: "A camel went by."
Bedouin: "Did you see the camel?"
Man: "No, but these footprints in the sand suggest that a camel made them."
Bedouin: "Do you see these mountains?"
Man: "Yes."
Bedouin: "They are indicative to me that Allah made them."