pariah

I must admit, I always tend to stumble when someone brings this up.

The theist claim, of course, is that the universe is highly ordered and this suggests a creator.

How does one refute this?

Violent Messiah

What you are stating is actually the TELEOLOGICAL argument for the existence of GOD. This is the second of the three pro-GOD arguments advocated by Rene Descartes. Basically, it states that the Universe is too 'beautiful' and too 'complex' for it to have occured as an accident - it must require an omniscient creator.

I think that this is a very weak argument.....

Funny thing is.......another one of the three pro-GOD arguments of Descartes could invalidate this - the COSMOLOGICAL argument. It is based on the law of cause and effect. Everything must be caused by something else. Ultimately, traditional theists believe that there was a first cause / kalaam / prime mover / GOD which created all of existence but He himself is not created.

These two arguments contradict each other.

C.A. states that God created everything. T.A. states that because there is the presence of a high degree of orderliness in the Universe, there must be a God. Huh?! What gives? Does this mean that if the Universe was ugly it was not born out of a deity? This nullifies C.A. And there is also the issue of beauty being relative. To some people, the world may not seem pretty as others may view it.....Does this mean that God did not create their world?

During the time of the Black Plague, WWI and WWII where it is inarguably the 'Dark Ages' of the world, would it be excusable not to believe in God?

CA inevitably points out to a world created by God irregardless of its beauty. TA just assumes a God if we were to view existence as something charming and worth living....

Stephen T-B

Why would an “orderly” universe be created by a god which isn’t at all orderly.
The God of the Bible makes the rules up as it goes along, altering the Laws of Nature at a whim.
They are in absolute opposition to such a chaotic entity.