Skip to content

Scaling the Secular City 2: The Design Argument


Swinburne quote, page 45: “The operation of the most fundamental regularities clearly cannot be given a normal scientific explanation. If their operation is to receive an explanation and not merely to be left as a brute fact, that explanation must therefore be in terms of the rational choice of a free agent.”

Maybe Dawes’ theism and explanation book would show whether this is an actual explanation. Given how I think that a “free” agent’s actions ultimately come from literally nothing, that means that this “explanation” ends up reducing to “nothing did it,” or “no reason.

I don’t really know how I’d respond to some of these arguments. Would it be fair to call them arguments from ignorance? Is an appeal to Dawes fair?

Another question remains as well. What is a good way to infer design? Theists tend to drop really plausible rules. Why are they not good rules? Is evolution a necessary component in guessing that life arose from intelligent design?

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: