도킨스의 과학적 무신론에 대한 유신론적 한 답변

Abstract

The design argument is simply put as follows: 1. Some things are very complicated. They contain many parts which fit and work together in an orderly and regular manner to achieve their end. 2. This complexity is evidence of design - the parts could not have come together in this way by chance - they must have been put together deliberately to achieve their purpose. 3. Where there is evidence of design, there must be a designer. In the case of a watch, this is the watchmaker. 4. The universe shows evidence of design. Nature has many complicated parts which work together to achieve their end (e.g. the eye, the pollination of flowers by bees, the orbits of the planets, the conditions of the Big Bang). They could not have come together in this way by chance. 5. If the universe shows evidence of design, then it must have a designer. Therefore God exists. But Dawkins claims that Darwinism made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. It is improbable that organised complexity should exist unexplained. Atheistic Darwinism is able to explain how organised complexity arises from simple, physical ultimates. God is useless as an explanation of organised complexity since he must have organised complexity and God's organised complexity would exist unexplained. So, God is both unnecessary and useless as an explanation of organised complexity and improbable in his own right. There is certainly no God. McGrath criticizes Dawkins' claims as follows: Darwinism does not explain everything. and no explanation of God's complexity is needed. God is not complex, but simple. From this, Swinburne argues that God hypothesis is very simple and requires few complicating assumptions that invite further explanation. Finally this paper argues that God's knowledge of the world can be explained in terms of his irreducible ability to choose among alternatives based on their value need not be organised improbable.