Hey all.I want to pose another question I got from a friend of mine some days ago. He thinks that the teleological argument fails in presupposing that life is more special than say a stone. The existence of life is (roughly) the same as that of a stone, a planet or any other phenomenon in the universe. Why on this view think that design is necessary for life, if life is no more probable than the existence of anything else?- Paaatrick
I cant speak for the friend, but what I would say is there is more reason to think the universe is desgined for life than it is for cup cakes. If someone said the unvierse was fine tuned for cup cakes Ithink we would laugh at them. So why take the claim that its fine tuned for life any mroe seriously?
The argument made by the thiest is that universe is fine tuned for life, the response by the sceptic is that the universe is no more fine tuned forlife than it is fine tuned for cup cakes. Both rely on the same values for the physical constants of nature.
i think you are missing the point. Let me give you another example that wil drive it home better. If you find a snow flake in the ground, do you assume its intelligently desgined?