تائبه خسروی

Nowadays, most Christian theologians, in defending theism, put forward the design argument against the arguments of scientists who, by appealing to chance, seek to render God unnecessary in explanation. Over time, the argument from design has been presented under various rubrics and interpretations—sometimes intertwined—in support of theism. It appears that the design argument was initially employed to complement knowledge of God, but over time, it has shifted its focus toward biological and empirical aspects that indicate the order of nature. In the present era, the primary aim of this argument is to defend theism against atheistic theories in the empirical sciences rather than to establish the purposiveness of existence. However, this formulation of the argument from design has not achieved the necessary success in proving God’s existence. Therefore, in this study, by elucidating the methodology of the empirical sciences and demonstrating the incompatibility of the design argument with this methodology, it becomes clear that one cannot rely solely on the design argument to counter atheism. In this way, it is shown that the intelligent design argument, in rejecting chance, lacks a demonstrative structure and not only fails to prove God but also falls short of establishing anything beyond what atheists themselves propose. Hence, one can draw upon the common ground between theology and science—namely, the metaphysical foundations of science—to advance empirical evidence in favor of theism. Accordingly, by employing a philosophical approach and enhancing the natural argument, this argument can be utilized as a strong proof for the existence of God.Keywords

William Craig has sought to defend theism by participating in numerous debates. In a debate with the American philosopher Sinnott Armstrong, which is also published in a book entitled "God", Craig in his first reason tries to prove the existence of God by denying "real infinity" and relying on the concept of beginning and "the need of every beginning for a cause". On the other hand, he takes Big Bang as a witness to his claim, but Armstrong rejects Craig's argument by referring to the existence of real infinity in the outside world and the existence of scientific evidence to negate the implication of the Big Bang on the beginning of the world. Based on this, when it is not possible to properly use experimental evidence as a proof of theological reasoning, such methods can put the belief in God in crisis. Therefore, lack of establishing the correct interaction between theology and science can be considered one of the most important weaknesses of Craig's argument on the existence of God. Finally, by introducing a scientific model, it is possible to provide a solution to establish a correlation between science and theology in such a way that theological evidence matches with experimental evidence and external truth, and no contradiction threatens the belief in God.