Philosophy Essay: Existence of God PDF

Preview

Summary

Discuss/analyze arguments on the existence of god; both for and against...

Description

#113396323 Sometimes in philosophy an argument is presented that contains a vague definition that is used to explain whatever phenomena come up throughout the debate. The idea of the existence of God is an example of how factual and spiritual qualitative experiences cannot connect. They are on two separate plains of existence. However, several arguments exist that attempt to observe facts about the natural world and explain them through the existence of God. Many philosophers claim the conclusion of a God existing must be true in order for any conditional statements to be true. One such argument is known as the design argument. The design argument for the existence of God observes that all complex beings are intricately assembled and have irreducible complexity. The conclusion is that chance and natural occurrences leading to the variability of the natural world are is possible but is very improbable. The more probable explanation is that things that are intricately composed are designed by an intelligent designer. The term irreducibly complexity refers to the idea that complexly designed organisms, such as animals and humans, would not be able to function without all the parts of the puzzle. Irreducible complexity supports the design argument and aims to discredit arguments against it that cite evolution and scientific adaptation being responsible for increased complexity over millions of years. But irreducible complexity is only based on the observations seen in nature today. Nature is constantly changing and adapting and just because this is the point of evolution humans began observing the complexity of organisms does not mean they appeared at this level of complexity, nor does it imply that the evolutionary process took place linearly, with one element being added at a time. There are many intermediate species fossils that have been

found that suggest simpler organisms existed with less complex structures. A good example is the complex mollusk eye. Intermediate species have still complex eye structures that in themselves could be said to have irreducible complexity because their parts work together. As mutations arise randomly, they sometimes are more favorable for a certain environment leading to the dominance of the mutated gene across the entire population. If there were a perfect intelligent designer with intentional and extraordinary control over the design of organisms, why would he create viruses, parasites, and invasive species that have a niche but serve no real function other than the destruction of other species, such as certain invasive algae or mosquitos. An all good and all-knowing creator would surely have an all functional creation. The design argument, like other philosophical arguments, is quite old and therefore does not take scientific discoveries of late into account. The scientific discoveries that have come about in the past century have been revolutionary for understanding the basis of nature and the connection every organism shares. Evidence that is hard to refute with the design argument, is the genetic code. The code of every single living thing is composed of four simple nucleotide bases. These four bases in combination create the incredible diversity we see in the world. If there were an intelligent designer for all of this, it would stand to reason the designer would have created many complex and functional codes for the expression of traits. The similarities of organisms throughout the fossil record as well as the genetic evidence weakens the design arguments, which argues the intelligent designer is intentional, exact, and diverse in his designs. The design argument presents the idea that everything is goal-directed and was designed to accomplish its specific goal. But this is a flawed idea. Nature is messy; many things go wrong in almost every natural process. The more likely explanation is that we as people and

philosophers have observed the existing world, those things that have been lucky enough to make it this far in the evolutionary process. Even so, our nature is flawed. Mutations happen all the time. New species are created based on filling a niche, and not all these species are positive for the ecosystems they inhabit. The issue with the goal-directed hypothesis is that goals are assigned after the fact. It is easy to call whatever the organism accomplishes the completion of a goal, but it is more likely that the world works in confusing and complicated ways and certain goals are accomplished in the process. One counter argument against the scientific rebuttals against the design argument is the belief that science is right in that we have common ancestors and mutations create diversity that leads to speciation, but God is the intelligent designer that set the entire process in motion. Sometimes, in other contexts, this is known as theist evolutionism. This argument is basically just assigning a name to what has been observed in the natural world. Since the definition of God is so ambiguous, it is easy to observe any natural phenomenon and attribute it to God, since there is not solid evidence to dispute it about the literal nature of God. However, accepting God and science presents a comfortable balance for living faithfully and morally while understanding the facts of the natural world. The design argument meant to prove the existence of God presents a strong logistical argument, but it applies definitions encompassing the natural world to God’s nature. The design argument claims the nature of the universe is all intentional, and by avoiding concrete definitions about the deity it describes, it is able to claim any occurrence to the obscure deity it claims the existence of. The design argument can be evaluated philosophically and scientifically and while it is viably logical it lacks any hard evidence....