تائبه خسروی

This study, drawing on Aristotelian essentialism the view that every being possesses an essence with intrinsic properties argues that the development and actualization of the human being, as one being among others in the world, are grounded in his essential nature, namely rationality. This essential nature inclines human beings toward the pursuit of the good, which is recognized as the final cause (telos) of the actualization of their essence. Moreover, human choices are not detached from the beings of the world. Rather, the objects of moral good and evil are the very entities and essences that exist in reality. Moral judgments, therefore, concern these concrete and real beings; they shape human actualization and take part in the causal order of the world. Therefore, since the actualization of beings is inseparable from their essences, the creator of the essences of the world and the legislator of moral laws must be one and the same. In the course of this study, we arrive at the conclusion that every doctrine other than religious moral realism ultimately confronts some form of relativism. Even moral relativism, insofar as it claims to endorse realism, is incapable of providing a foundation for an absolute and objective higher good. Accordingly, through rational inquiry and on the basis of Aristotelian essentialism, the possibility of discovering reality for human beings is established, along with the justification of moral realism and, ultimately, the compatibility of moral realism with the foundations of theistic monotheism.

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.