RE: Another argument for existence of God!
May 23, 2012 at 9:51 am
(This post was last modified: May 23, 2012 at 9:53 am by Ben Davis.)
(May 23, 2012 at 9:22 am)jain.rahul Wrote: Hello,
I was given an argument for existence of God. The statement goes something like this.
"Only randomness can be there without intelligence, consciousness but universe is not in a random design nor it is working randomly. Therefore it requires an intelligent designer"
What type of argument is this, and how can I refute it?
As far as I can see, its another Teleological argument. What's a good counter for this one?
Without evidence, this is mere speculation and not even coherent; it certainly wouldn't qualify as a working hypothesis. Definitions & qualifications are needed for the following statements:
1. only randomness can be there without intelligence (and/or) consciousness
2. (the) universe is not in a random design
3. (the universe is not) working randomly
4. (there is) an intelligent designer
...before the final statement can even pretend to hold validity as an argument.
Basically, you're being bullshitted.
Sum ergo sum
