Argument from design: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{a|philosophy|}}The argument from design, known to aesthetes as the teleological argument, was attributed to William Paley, holds that the amount of intricate design and mach..." Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|philosophy|}}The argument from design, known to aesthetes as the teleological argument, was attributed to William Paley, holds that | {{a|philosophy|}}The argument from design, known to aesthetes as the teleological argument, was attributed to William Paley, holds that: | ||
{{quote| | |||
{{argument from design capsule}} | |||
}} | |||
A God, in other words. | |||
{{Sa}} | {{Sa}} | ||
*[[Conway’s Game of Life]] | *[[Conway’s Game of Life]] | ||
*[[Transgressing hermeneutical boundaries]] | |||
Latest revision as of 10:47, 16 October 2024
|
Philosophy
|
The argument from design, known to aesthetes as the teleological argument, was attributed to William Paley, holds that:
The intricacy and sophistication of the engineering we observe at a cosmic, astrophysical, geological, biological, molecular and quantum level, whose specific configuration appears utterly essential for any part of the universe as we know it to exist, is so staggeringly great, and its provenance by chance so brain-bogglingly improbable, that it cannot have come about except through the intervention of an intelligent designer.
A God, in other words.