What is your answer?
How would Plantinga object to this version of the "argument from design"?
1. The universe has an intricate order (just like a watch).
2. Most things with an intricate order have intelligent designers.
3. Therefore, the universe probably has an intelligent designer.
4. If the universe has an intelligent designer, then there is a God.
5. Therefore, there probably is a God.
{ 1 } - The argument presupposes the Medieval picture of the world as ordered and rational -- a view that modern people cannot accept.
{ 2 } - Step 4 is weak; it's unclear why there has to be a single designer who is an all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful spiritual being.
{ 3 } - Evolution gives another way to explain the order in the world.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
How would Plantinga object to this version of the "argument from design"?
1. The universe has an intricate order (just like a watch).
2. Most things with an intricate order have intelligent designers.
3. Therefore, the universe probably has an intelligent designer.
4. If the universe has an intelligent designer, then there is a God.
5. Therefore, there probably is a God.
{ 1 } - The argument presupposes the Medieval picture of the world as ordered and rational -- a view that modern people cannot accept.
{ 2 } - Step 4 is weak; it's unclear why there has to be a single designer who is an all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful spiritual being.
{ 3 } - Evolution gives another way to explain the order in the world.
Plantinga examines the steps of the argument in a careful way -- and criticizes steps that seem to be weak or flawed. He wouldn't reject an argument just because it presupposes a picture of the world that (some?) modern people cannot accept.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is correct!
How would Plantinga object to this version of the "argument from design"?
1. The universe has an intricate order (just like a watch).
2. Most things with an intricate order have intelligent designers.
3. Therefore, the universe probably has an intelligent designer.
4. If the universe has an intelligent designer, then there is a God.
5. Therefore, there probably is a God.
{ 1 } - The argument presupposes the Medieval picture of the world as ordered and rational -- a view that modern people cannot accept.
{ 2 } - Step 4 is weak; it's unclear why there has to be a single designer who is an all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful spiritual being.
{ 3 } - Evolution gives another way to explain the order in the world.
Most orderly things have been made by imperfect beings with bodies. So shouldn't we conclude that the universe's designer is imperfect and has a body? The design argument gives no evidence that the designer is God -- a perfect spiritual being.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
3 is wrong. Please try again.
How would Plantinga object to this version of the "argument from design"?
1. The universe has an intricate order (just like a watch).
2. Most things with an intricate order have intelligent designers.
3. Therefore, the universe probably has an intelligent designer.
4. If the universe has an intelligent designer, then there is a God.
5. Therefore, there probably is a God.
{ 1 } - The argument presupposes the Medieval picture of the world as ordered and rational -- a view that modern people cannot accept.
{ 2 } - Step 4 is weak; it's unclear why there has to be a single designer who is an all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful spiritual being.
{ 3 } - Evolution gives another way to explain the order in the world.
Evolution can perhaps explain part of the order (why, for example, we've developed eyes and ears). But it can't explain the law of gravity, for example. In any case, Plantinga doesn't mention evolution.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end