A classic argument in favor of God’s existence is this Argument by Analogy:

Suppose you didn’t know anything about cars, and then you encountered a car in the forest and examined it. (Maybe you got in, turned the key and figured out how to drive it around, then opened the hood and looked at the engine, etc.) You wouldn’t think that it had come into existence by accident or luck, like a pile of rocks on a hillside. No, something so complicated (with parts that interact) must have been designed by someone, an intelligent designer.

Now here is the analogy: consider the universe and all that it contains. Look for example at the mind-boggling yet consistent laws of gravity and space/time; look at the interacting organs and cells of the human body; look at the atomic and sub-atomic structure of matter. The universe is a lot more intricate and complex than a car; so, like the car, it cannot have come into existence by accident or luck. It must have been designed by an intelligent being — in this case, a supremely intelligent being. We call that being God.

YOUR ASSIGNMENT:

In your first post, make a case against this Argument by Analogy.

PLEASE NOTE: we are not asking you to argue that God does not exist, or to give your opinion on whether God exists. (Please do not do either of these things.) The only issue here is whether the above Argument by Analogy is a good argument or not. By this point in the course, you should be clear on the distinction.

We are asking you to argue that this is a bad argument for God’s existence. That means you need to either

A. dispute the truth of one or more of its premises, or

B. argue that its premises, even if true, do not make its conclusion probable,

C. or both.

If pursuing option B, do not just give your explanation for how the universe came to be. You must grapple with the analogy.

We are looking for you to demonstrate your ability to analyse an argument and critique it. (If you believe this is a good argument, suspend that belief and show your ability to carry out the assignment.)

In your second post, when you respond to another student, feel free to switch sides and argue in favor of the above Argument by Analogy (i.e., take the opposite view from the one in your initial post). Try to find a flaw in another student’s reasoning, and discuss it in a constructive way.

NOTE: the argument explicitly denies that a car is as complex and intricate as the universe (e.g., the human body or space-time or matter). So don’t accuse it of claiming this. It fully acknowledges that the universe is much more complex than a car, and it uses this to get its conclusion.

When you respond to a fellow student’s response, you need to dispute some point that another student made, and to give reasons for your response. Don’t just say something like “I disagree with his or her response.” Be respectful: the goal is to have an enlightening debate

The other students post is in the file to respond toPlease answer the questions above for the discussion question then respond to the other student from in the file upload