The Wise Architect

Response to Design for God’s Existence

            Simon Blackburn analyses the fundamental working of the universe as proof of God's existence. According to the sentiments of the author, the functionalities machines of the entire earth point to a deity. One functionality has infinite sections, these infinite sections can be subdivided further beyond any human senses and comprehension. The author further confirms that functionalities of the machines are perfect and do not overlap in any way. The curious manner in which nature adapts, solves challenges, and produces is astonishingly beautiful and a brilliant indicator of a deity (Oppy, 2009). Therefore, the writer tries to push forward the point that earth with its confluence of situations that resulted in its creation is statistically incredible.  The appearance of human life is a unique happening given that the combination of various factors had to come together at a particular time for life to occur. Hence, the author makes use of these uncertainties to build up his argument. The occurrence of human life itself is the mystery and the combination of the conditions which brought humans to live into being are rare. The intricacies of nature alone, are enough to confuse human intelligence.  The author seems to lean on the fact that the human race is a privileged species as they live under a conducive place where all the suitable ingredients are available for sustenance of life such as water atmosphere and chemical composition.

            The author tries to convince the reader that the simplicity and mystery of human life is an act of a deity. This might be hard for people who do not believe in the existence of a deity but helps to drive his point home (Berlin, 2013). Additionally, connecting the existence of a deity is the emergence and existence of evil. The author fails to point out the underlying reasons for the existence of evil on earth. Taking his argument into account, the existence of a deity is supposed to explain the other side, which is the devil. If there is a deity somewhere, then he must account for the existence of the devil. Ignoring the evil side of the earth somehow threw the entire argument against the wall because the validity of his argument only relies on the cosmetology and not chance (Beckwith, 2016). Claiming that a deity created humankind and everything else makes the argument place accountability on God's hands. If the universe in all its splendor does not rely on its deity for assistance, then, it might as well depend on science and technology because the deity plays a passive role. Even though some parts of the argument are ambiguous, the author uses principles of nature to shape his argument rather than explain using scientific terms the behaviors of nature.

 It seems as if this author aimed at explaining the origin of mankind rather give underlying reasons for natural phenomena. Currently, science can explain some of the natural processes the author fancies (Gartoulla, 2008). It would have been easier if the author would have taken time to study some scientific precepts of nature rather than bombard the audience with a shallow analysis. However, no one can deny the simple fact that some of the most notable noble actions were done by human beings who had faith in deities. While this might be true, one can also argue that religion has greatly impacted peace in the world. More so, the author fails to highlight the enormous harm religion has done in different parts of human society. Once again, the central role of a deity diverts the content of the argument into the evil side of the earth. Although the author chooses the theme of god and tries to bring in natural and cosmological factors, his perspectives lean on centralizing a deity rather than exploring the world and finding out nitty-gritty details about the earth. Not all things can be solved or understood at once but with formulated steps and agility to know and evaluate facts, somethings might be understood with time.

            There is a difference between absolute truths and imaginations. The author does not try driving his argument toward absolute truth and this makes some of his statements weak. It is easier to hold onto hope than dwell on the concept of a deity (Matthews, 2016). It is vital to note that the author is learned and brings out some clear statements which are interesting and acceptable but he fails to shake of imagination and infuse the argument with absolute truths which would create a persuasive essay. The world is already shaped by ideals and scientific concepts that the author fails to accept and bring into his argument to shed light on some of the unclear factors. For the sale of stabilizing the argument based on common facts upon which anyone can analyze and make their conclusions. The deliberate omission of certain human beliefs may make his argument gain momentum and also regain credibility depending on the angle one wants to evaluate the situation with as long as a common ground is arrive at the end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference

Beckwith, A. (2016). La Grangian Multiplier Equation in Pre Planckian Space-Time Early Universe and the Cosmological Constant.

Berlin, I. (2013). Concepts and categories: Philosophical essays. Princeton University Press.

Gartoulla, R. P. (2008). Textbook of medical sociology and medical anthropology. Kathmandu: Research Centre fir Integrated Development-Nepal.

Matthews, L. J. (2016). On closing the gap between philosophical concepts and their usage in scientific practice: a lesson from the debate about natural selection as mechanism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 55, 21-28.

Oppy, G. (2009). Cosmological arguments. Noûs, 43(1), 31-48.