-
Strength Of The Argument For The God’s Existence
The argument for belief in God says that when we look at the universe, its design and existence point to a Creator. How strong is this argument?especially since atheists say it is just a product of human imagination and the universe might not need a Creator?
If this argument is as clear and strong as religious people claim, why can it still be rejected? Shouldn’t such a basic argument be impossible to deny?
Also, if the arguments of Islam are so simple and obvious then why we observe atheists not only rejecting these premises but also leading fulfilling lives,Does this show that people believe what they want to, rather than what is true? Is this not a pattern seen in religious people who accept these arguments?
-
6 Replies
-
Strength Of The Argument For The God’s Existence
updated 3 weeks, 1 day ago
3 Members
·
6
Replies
-
Human behaviour is a separate debate. We know that a large portion of people believe in multiple gods without rational arguments. The most intelligent ones believes the trinity.
The design argument is the most powerful one. The counter argument is just noting but the argument of Coincident, which is adorned with speculative details, which are fantastic.
No argument can prove that there might not be a God. Then comes religion which affirms that there is God.
-
You mentioned that the coincidence argument is speculativebut how can we conclusively dismiss it when there is neither solid proof for God’s existence nor for His non-existence? While the design argument affirms that there is order and structure in the universe, couldn’t it also be argued that the natural laws of the universe themselves are responsible for this order and structure? I am not denying the presence of design in the universe, but how can we determine whether this design points to a Creator (God) or is simply the result of the natural laws of the universe? Without solid evidence that decisively proves one argument over the other, how can we declare the coincidence argument to be invalid or inferior to the design argument?
-
-
The coincidence argument is not a scientific argument.
The design argument is based on observation, experimentation or induction and logical inference drawn from that i.e. whenever there is a structured design/information, there always is a mind/creator behind it. Assuming otherwise i.e. coincidence giving rise to natural laws defies all the criteria of knowledge (observation, experimentation and logical inference). Therefore, upright denial of a creator or coincidence argument has no basis whatsoever. More so, it is a flawed and absurd thesis.
-
If we accept the existence of design, isn’t it possible that this design emerged naturally over time through the workings of natural laws? Philosophers like Bertrand Russell argue that design might not require the intervention of a Creator and could simply be the result of the natural laws. Isn’t it plausible that we view design not as evidence of a Creator, but as an outcome of the natural laws themselves, which inherently produce order and structure? If we accept that natural laws are responsible for this order, why should we necessarily interpret design in light of a Creator rather than through the lens of natural laws?
-
The answer is already there in the response of Umer Qureshi saheb. To consider this very far fetched probability defies all criteria of knowledge and logic.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
