Now, to fill out the substantive argument, just to give me a sense of conclusion:
In any other circumstance, finding a mechanism as elaborate and delicately balanced, with such refined calibration as the universe, would lead one to infer that it was the product of a designer. The idea that it came together randomly would seem idiotic, since it is a highly coordinated system, and one thing out of place could screw things up.
The objection that it is imperfect, both in design and in relation to our conception of benevolence, presupposes that the universe is nothing but a mechanism, utterly under the control of its author. However, we see ourselves as other players, within the universe, who have free will, and can easily imagine other beings, more powerful than we, who might have behaved in a disruptive manner. Thus, the fact of imperfection does not argue against the author.
This is not the only objection, but it is the main one, and it is very weak.
The argument from design remains, at a minimum, plausible enough that we are at liberty to hold it as a belief. |
