God is an inexplicable explanation

From Wikidebates
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Parent debateThis argument is used in the debate Does God exist?.
Keywords: Teleological argument, God[ edit ].



“The "logic" of creationists is always the same. A certain natural phenomenon is too statistically improbable, too complex, too beautiful, too amazing to have come into existence by chance. Since design is the only alternative to chance that these authors can imagine, it must have a designer. And science's response to this flawed logic is also always the same: design is not the only alternative to chance; natural selection is more satisfactory. In fact, design isn't an alternative at all, because it raises an even bigger problem than it solves: who designed the designer? Both chance and design fail to solve the problem of statistical improbability, because the former is the problem, and the latter leads back to it. Natural selection is a real solution; of all those that have been proposed, it's the only one that works. And, what's more, it's astonishingly elegant and powerful.”

Richard Dawkins, To put an end to God, Robert Laffont, Paris, 2008.



Arguments forJustifications

  • Argument forPostulating a complex being like God doesn't explain complexity
  • Argument forThe existence of God is even more improbable than what God is supposed to have created.

Arguments againstObjections

  • Argument againstBecause God is a simple Being, he needs no explanation.
  • Argument againstThe fact that we can't explain God doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
  • Argument againstExplanation by chance is even more inexplicable than explanation by God

Parent debateParent debate