> The Argument from Design & Answering some questions on it by atheists

[Qatada]

:

The argument from design for the existence of God is as follows:

1. The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

As I explained in my lecture it cannot be due to physical necessity because no natural laws existed before the creation of the universe. Natural laws came into existence after the creation of the universe. Therefore, we cannot say that a law existed before the creation of the universe, which forced the universe to be created the way it is.

As for chance, I cited several people who said that this universe did not come out by chance. Citing people is not even necessary, since it is common sense.

I urge everyone to research about the complex detailed stuff in the universe that cry out for a designer. There are too many examples to share.

Now I want to address four objections to this argument:

1) The universe has problems with it. It doesn't appear that a God designed it.

2) Evolution accounts for the appearance of design in biological organisms.

3) It's not surprising that the universe is in perfect order, for if it wasn't we wouldn't be here to see it.

4) Rare probabilities do occur like the lottery, so why not in the situation of the big bang where the universe by chance came out the way that it did?

1) The universe has problems with it. It doesn't appear that a God designed it.

First of all, Islam doesn't teach that Allah wanted to create the universe perfect in the sense that there are no defects. On the contrary, Allah makes it clear that He will test people.

Rather, what we believe is that Allah created everything perfect for its purpose. So if someone is born with a defect, he is still considered to be created perfect for his purpose in life.

We must not confuse design with optimality. Just because a car's brakes might not work properly, that doesn’t mean that it is not designed. It could mean that it is not optimal, but it doesn’t mean that it is not designed. Electrical engineers distinguish between design and optimality because sometimes they have to sacrifice optimality for other things such as cost effectiveness. God could have done the same. Maybe He didn’t want optimality for other purposes such as testing us, etc.

2) Evolution accounts for the appearance of design in biological organisms.

No need to waste time refuting evolution. The argument we are putting forth goes all the way back to the big bang. Evolution came after the big bang, thus this response is useless from their end.

Furthermore, evolution can't explain how the process of evolution itself started.

3) It's not suprising that the universe is in perfect order, for if it wasn't we wouldn't be here to see it.

This ridiculous argument was dealt a blow by Dr. William Lane Craig:

This can be clearly seen by means of an illustration (borrowed from John Leslie): suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that

5. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,
nonetheless it is equally true that

6. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive.
Since the firing squad's missing you altogether is extremely improbable,

the surprise expressed in (6) is wholly appropriate, though you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since if you were dead you could not observe it. Similarly, while we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our existence, it is nevertheless true that

7. We should he surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence, in view of the enormous improbability.

Moving on...

4) Rare probabilities do occur like the lottery, so why not in the situation of the big bang where the universe by chance came out the way that it did?

Dr. Craig states:

Any universe you pick is equally probable, yes, but it is highly, highly improbable that the universe you pick will be life-permitting. That's the point. It's like a lottery in which there's a billion, billion, billion black marbles and one white marble. Any marble you pick is equally improbable, but the probability that the marble you do pick will be black is vastly more probable than that it will be white. Similarly, given the improbability of the initial conditions of the universe, the universe ought to be dead; there shouldn't be any life in the universe. The fact that it cannot be explained on the basis of chance or law leaves us with design as the best explanation for why the universe is finely tuned for our existence.

Dr. Craig is arguing that the analogy to the lottery is false. The reason is because in a lottery, it is equally highly improbable for each person to win. However, it is not specified that a particular person would win. But someone has to win. So if someone wins, that's not a big deal. However, if one were to specify that so and so person will win out of like hundreds of millions of people and then got that right, well then that is definitely miraculous. But that never happens.

When it comes to the universe, it was specified. Out of all the possible trillions and trillions of conditions that the big bang could have undergone that could have resulted in a non-life permitting universe, we should expect to not be here. However, it was specified that this particular set of conditions be there and that indeed is a miracle.

By Bassam Zawadi;
The Argument from Design - Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth