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
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