|
|
|
|
|
[논문] THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS (영문) (32)
|
|
|
PAUL
|
2023-11-19 01:02:57, 조회 : 231 |
|
|
✝✝✝ A DEMONSTRATION OF GOD AND THE ARGUMENTS
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF CHRISTIAN GOD IN CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS (32)
by Dr. Paul B. Jang (Ph.D. Christian Apologetics) (영문) ✝✝✝
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURES:
PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE CONCEPTS AND EXISTENCE OF God
HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL SURVEY
THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF God.
Rational Arguments:
The Teleological Argument (2)
And Paley explains the God of ontological argument in comparison to the watchmaker, and Cleanthes with the greater machine maker (Burrill, ed., 1967, 165-176).
Especially, Cleanthes agrees with the teleological argument. He systemizes his theory as follows: All design implies a designer. Great design implies a great designer. There is great design in the world. Therefore, there must be a great Designer of the world (Geisler and Corduan, 1988, 95).
William Lane Craig agrees with the teleological argument that cosmic considerations have breathed new life into the argument from design (Craig, 1984, 73).
Leslie Orgel agreed to the use of the biological consideration for the teleological argument: that living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity (Orgel, 1973, 189).
Paley agreed to the teleological argument with his principle reinstated from the co-relationship between complexity and specificity. He reinstated this as this: Living cells are characterized by their specified complexity. A written language has specified complexity. Uniform experience informs us that only intelligence is capable of regularly producing specified complexity. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that living organisms were produced by intelligence (Yorkey, 1981, 13-31).
Paley also accepted the Human principle and used it for the argument in his Natural Theology as follows: Whenever we see marks of contrivance we are led for its cause to an intelligent author...We see intelligence constantly contriving; that is, we see intelligence constantly producing effects, marked and distinguished by certain properties...We wish to account for their origin. Our experience suggests a cause perfectly adequate to this account...because it agrees with that which in all cases is the foundation of knowledge--the undeviating course of their experience. (Paley, 1824, 37)
But this argument also cannot totally be accepted because the purely naturalistic explanations of the origin of life have been demonstrated to be implausible.
Nevertheless, Kant regards this argument as the best of the three which were named, ontological, cosmological, and teleological, but claims that it does not prove the existence of God, nor of a Creator, but only of a great architect who fashioned the world (Berkhof, 1971, 26).
He said , teleological argument can at most demonstrate the existence of an architect of the world, not of a creator of the world, to whom all things are subject (Kant, 1887, 385).
He insisted that the teleological argument can be concluded as this: This argument is based on experience of design and order in the world. But experience never provides us with the idea of an absolutely perfect and necessary Being. Hence a necessary Being cannot be provided from the design in the world (Gleisler and Corduan, 1988, 106). In conclusion, Kant assumed a dubious attitude to the teleological argument for the existence of God.
David Hume also assumed a skeptical attitude to the teleological argument. His skeptical alternatives to the teleological argument was based on the two responses to the teleological argument of a skeptic, Philo. The first argument of Philo is as follows:
Different from human intelligence, since human inventions differ from those of nature. Finite, since the effect is finite. Imperfect, for there are imperfections in nature. Multiple, for the creation of the world is more like the cooperative building of a ship. Male and female, for this is the way humans generate. Anthropomorphic, for his creature has eyes, ears, noses, and other physical traits. (Burrill, 1967, 184-191)
The second argument of Philo insists that it is possible that the world arose by chance, therefore this argument does not recognize that there is design in the world. This argument may be stated as this: The apparent order in the world resulted from either design or from chance. It is entirely plausible that the world resulted from chance (Burill, 1967, 191-198).
Alvin Plantinga also agrees with such critiques from David Hume (Plantinga, 1967, 107-111). He allows that there might be a smidgen evidence for design in the universe, but then argues that it is virtually impossible to go on and draw inferences from that bit of insight to the existence or nature of God as designer (Plantinga, 1974, 84).
F.R. Tennant evaluates the alternative to the teleological argument to be conceivable but highly improbable (Hick, ed. 1964, 120-136).
Julian Huxley, as an arch-defender of evolution, estimated that at the known rate of helpful mutations over the known time scale the odds against evolution happening by pure chance alone were three million zero to one (Huxley, 1953, 46).
Bertrand Russell also suggested the teleological argument in the standpoint of evolution as this: (1) the adaptation of means to end in the world is either the result of evolution or else the result of design. (2) This adaptation is the result of evolution. (3) Therefore, this adaptation is not the result of design (Russell, 1957, 589).
But Taylor tried to accomplish with his argument of the existence of God based on the apparent advanced planning within nature. He made an effort to handle both the evolutionary and chance alternatives in order to set up his theory of the argument of existence of God. 💗💗💗
- to be continued -
. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
선교운동소개
동역자실 