A Scientific Argument For The Existence Of God Analysis

In this paper I will explain and evaluate two popular arguments regarding the existence of God, A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God by Robin Collins and The Inductive Argument from Evil Against the Existence of God by William Rowe; then I will discuss how the conclusions are not compatible with one another due to the conflicting structure of the conclusions as well as how one cannot accept both conclusions without compromising one of the arguments. First I will explain the basis of Collins’ argument, which is one of the most frequently used arguments in favor of theism. In A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God, Collins centers around the observation of how finely tuned the physical constants of the universe are to the ability for any form of life to exist, if any of them were to change even the smallest bit then no life would possibly be able to develop not to …show more content…
The conclusion is drawn from Collins ' argument, that it is highly likely that there is some sort of designer based on the prime principle of confirmation, is not compatible with Rowe’s conclusion, that there cannot be a God because of the existence of gratuitous suffering because they could not both be true. While Rowe concedes that there is a reasonable response of theists to his argument, the format of Collins’ argument does not allow for this because he does not take the approach of friendly theism. In the Fine Tuning Argument, Collins focuses on how the only logical explanation for the existence of the universe as we know it is due to a divine designer, which is inherently unfriendly theism, and therefore he cannot accept the argument that Rowe presents as reasonable. In addition to this, he also could not accept Rowe’s argument because if he were to say someone could be logical in concluding that there is no designer then his argument, which was already weak, completely