## Short version I'm specifically referring to [Graham Oppy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Oppy) 's paper [An Argument for Atheism from Naturalism](https://philarchive.org/rec/OPPAAF) : > **Abstract** This paper outlines an argument for atheism from naturalism that I have developed in more detail elsewhere (in particular, in *The Best Argument against God*). The overall shape of the argument is as follows: first, naturalism is simpler than theism; second, there is no data that naturalism does not explain at least as well as theism; and, third, naturalism entails atheism; so we have good reason to prefer atheism to theism. Note that this statement of the shape of the argument is NOT a statement of the argument itself. In short, Oppy argues that *naturalism is simpler than theism*, and that, all else being equal, we should always rationally prefer a simpler explanation of the data. How do Christians rebut Graham Oppy's position? ## Longer version A few relevant quotes from the [paper](https://philpapers.org/archive/OPPAAF.pdf) : > Theists differ in the ways that they depart from naturalism. Some theists believe in a God who created our universe ex nihilo. Some theists believe in a God whose actions preserve our universe in existence. Some theists believe in a God who inhabits an eternal realm that has no spatiotemporal relation to our universe. Some theists believe in an intelligent and active God who is neither a natural organism nor an artificial intelligence created by natural organisms. Some theists believe in a God that is a non-personal supernatural power or supernatural force that exerts influence on our universe. Some theists believe that the universe possesses the non-natural property of being divine, or that the non-natural property of being divine ‘permeates’ the universe. And so on. > > **Although theists differ in the ways in which they depart from naturalism, there is a common feature** **to theistic departures from naturalism. In every case, theists differ from naturalists by believing in** **something additional**: either believing in one or more additional intelligent agents, or believing in one or more additional forces or powers, or believing in one or more additional non-natural properties of the universe. > > > Suppose that we are comparing a particular version of theism with a particular version of naturalism. Suppose, further, that these versions of theism and naturalism agree in their beliefs about which natural entities, and natural powers, and natural forces, and natural properties, and natural laws there are. In this case, it’s not just that the theist has beliefs in something over and above the things the atheist believes in; it’s also the case that the naturalist does not have beliefs in anything over and above the things the theist believes in. **From the standpoint of the naturalist, the theistic beliefs** **of the theist are pure addition; and, from the standpoint of the theist, the naturalistic beliefs of the** **naturalist are pure subtraction**. > > **In this case, if all else is no better than equal, then there is clear reason to prefer naturalism to** **theism. For, if all else is no better than equal, then there is no reason to have the additional theistic beliefs**. Hence, in this case, in order to decide between theism and naturalism, we just need to determine whether all else is no better than equal. ... > **The burden of the rest of this chapter is to argue that there are no features of the natural universe** **that have a better explanation on theism than they do on naturalism**. Of course, I won’t be able to examine every feature of the natural universe that might be thought to have a better explanation on theism than it does on naturalism. However, I shall try to examine all of the most prominent features of the natural universe that have been widely supposed to have a better explanation on theism than on naturalism. Given the treatment of the cases that I do discuss, it should be obvious how to extend the discussion to features of the natural universe that I do not examine here. He then goes on to explain how 8 features of the world commonly used to argue for theism can be better accounted for under naturalism. Namely: - Existence - Causation - Fine-Tuning - Morality - Consciousness - Miracles - Religious Experiences - Meaning and Purpose > 9\. **Conclusion** > As I mentioned at the outset, I cannot claim to have considered all of the data that bears on the decision between theism and naturalism (and not can I claim to have given a fully adequate assessment of any of the data that I have considered). However, I hope that I have done enough to indicate how my argument for naturalism would look if it were set out in full and complete detail. (I give a fuller—but still incomplete—exposition of the argument in The Best Argument against God, Palgrave-Macmillan, 2013.) > > 10\. **Note about Evil** > Of course, there is data that at least some theists suppose favours naturalism over theism—e.g. data about horrendous suffering, data about non-belief, and data about the scale of our universe. Some naturalists think that data about horrendous suffering is logically inconsistent with theism. As Epicurus argued long ago: >> Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? > > Other naturalists think that data about horrendous suffering renders theism highly improbable: given the major horrors of the twentieth century alone, isn’t it incredible to suppose that our universe is the work of an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good being? I have focussed on data that many theists suppose favour theism over naturalism because my argument requires only that, on any piece of data, naturalism does at least as well as theism in explaining that data. Even if it is true, for example, that naturalism affords a better explanation of horrendous suffering in our universe than is given by theism, that truth makes no contribution to the argument that I have been advancing here. --- **NOTE**: Graham Oppy's formulation of the argument is arguably one of the strongest available in the literature, given Oppy's reputation as one of the most respected contemporary atheist philosophers. For instance, William Lane Craig once said about Oppy's book *Arguing about Gods*: > Oppy's book is not merely recommended but essential reading for anyone interested in natural theology today. No one can pretend to a successful theistic argument unless he has dealt with Oppy's criticisms first. ([source](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/arguing-successfully-about-god-a-review-essay-of-graham-oppys-arguing-about)) However, the claim that naturalism is "simpler" than theism is thrown around quite frequently in informal discussions with atheists. For example, take a look at some of the answers to [Could Occam's Razor ever favor theism?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/110026/66156) .

Charity admits degrees (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas in *On Love and Charity* and *Summa Theologica* II-II q. 24 a. 4 - a. 10 ). Has any theologian explained if it is possible to measure one's degree of charity? If so, how can it be measured?

This question arose in the context of arguments about extraterrestrial intelligent species. Some Christians, especially among Young Earth Creationists, believe that we can rule out the possibility of ETs on the basis of Scripture. Anyway, my intention here is not to prove or disprove that, but rather on some ideas which have appeared within the discussion. This article by Gary Bates makes many arguments for that conclusion, and I'm wondering about one specific part of the argument, namely the assumption throughout that ETs must have immortal souls, just as we do (I know some schools of thought dispute this; those are outside the scope of the question). They bring up an idea from Michael Heiser that "Just like ‘bunny rabbits’ on the earth, they do not need salvation—even though they will die, they are going to neither heaven nor hell." The respond thus: > And Heiser’s ETs in spaceships require a level of intelligence not found in rabbits. This acutely highlights the injustice of their suffering the effects of the Curse, including death and ultimately extinction when the heavens are ‘rolled up like a scroll’ (Revelation 6:14). It also seems bizarre to assign no moral responsibility for the actions of highly intelligent beings. But this response is somewhat oblique - Heiser's argument isn't that they aren't morally accountable (at least not as presented by Bates), but rather that they don't go to heaven or hell. Bates seems to be a tacit assumption here that an immortal soul is a prerequisite either for intelligence or for moral responsibility. It isn't clear which, but in either case, I'd like to understand the philosophical underpinnings here a little better. **Have some Christian philosophers made the case that moral accountability and/or rational intelligence require an immortal soul?** If so, what reasoning is used to argue for that conclusion?

I did some reading but cannot say for certain I understand. Imagine the fiber is a cylindrical object. Does the stain cover the upper most fiber for 360 degrees around the fiber extrior? And does the back of the Shroud contain the same discoloration 360 degrees around the upper most fiber?

The Bible teaches that we should seek truth and avoid falsehoods. However, when it comes to things like the shape of the earth, most Christians rely on information from governments or scientists, since none of us have personally verified it by traveling to space. If a Christian sincerely believes something that is false (like the earth being flat or round), before it has been revealed to them or verified firsthand, is that considered heresy, or just ignorance? At what point does holding a false belief cross into spiritual error? I'm especially interested in how this applies when the belief doesn’t directly affect one’s salvation or core doctrines. Is believing in a scientifically incorrect idea — even unknowingly — a form of heresy in the eyes of the Church or Scripture?

Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father and Mary, a virgin. So my question is, have any Christian theologians discussed whether Jesus only resemble his mother Mary, or whether he also resembled his adopted father Joseph? God could easily have arranged it so that Jesus resembled Joseph, even if Joseph played no role in the conception of Jesus.

I am not trying to be argumentative, this is an earnest question, as this question got me in huge trouble when I was growing up attending a southern baptist Christian middle school. This question (and people's reactions to it) is actually one of the things that lead my away from the church as a teenager (which I later came back to). If the speed of light is constant and we can see distant objects (stars, galaxies, etc) that are millions or billions of light years away how can we account for a young age of the universe? - My father, at that time, was convinced that the speed of light has been slowing down since the creation of the universe. Although, I have never seen any credible evidence of this, and it would seem that measurements taken at CERN (and elsewhere) would be seriously affected if the speed of light was not a constant. - My 8th grade science teacher said it was because objects used to be closer than they are now, and have moved away from each other over time. However, if the universe was only 10k years old, and two objects started next to each other and traveled away from each other at nearly the speed of light, the most distant objects in the universe would still only appear to be a little less then 10k light years away. - God creating the universe with photons in flight, making the distant universe (and therefore past events) only *appear* to be taking places (or even existing), is certainly deceptive and I cannot accept it. - Do YEC consider the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth two separate questions? My question isn't 'how old is the universe?', or 'did the big bang happen?', or 'creation vs evolution'. It is simply this: how do Christians, who are YEC, reconcile this? **Edit** Some have asked, why I cannot accept that God created photons in midflight giving the appearance of age? - In the [video series](http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/distant-starlight) @SeanDowney posted below, the presenter speaking against this argument shows a star that is 150k light years away that we observed blowing up. So, if God created photons in midflight then for 8k years God has been showing us a star that never existed and showed us an event (the start being destroyed) that never took place. - This is a specious argument in general, because I can make the same argument that God created the universe 5 minutes ago and all the evidence to the contrary (physical evidence, our memories of the past, etc.) were all put in place to give the appearance of age. In both these cases, God making the universe appear to be billions of years old, instead of 5 minutes old, or the universe appearing to be billions of years old instead of 10k years, involves deception on the part of God that I cannot accept God (or my conception of him) would perpetrate.

We Christians say the devil is responsible for our sins and temptations. However, I don't see how this can coexist with scientific knowledge. Specifically, we know that life has adapted over time to surviving and reproducing as much as possible (after all, that is what causes more similar lifeforms to arise - it's called natural selection). This includes hormonal systems in the brain that create a positive response to things like reproduction (sex) or eating (gluttony), along with other behaviors like the challenging of authority, or the seeking of (evil) novelties to carry out, which positively impact the species' prosperity. However, this also extends to "rational" (non-chemical) sins as well. In the end, every lie, every insult and even every murder comes from an underlying reasoning (in the latter case, it comes from a reasoning which has been heavily corrupted by the conditions in which one has developed, but the point still holds). Bearing in mind all this, how can we say that there is an external influence "creating" these sins and temptations when it is the internal systems of the brain that are? Saying so would be like saying that demons are responsible for our survival, or like saying that they created these systems in the first place (which, inevitable as they are due to the conditions of the Earth, would imply that they would have created the Earth itself!) Where does this reasoning go wrong?

Genesis says that we were ***created by God*** from Dust and God's power. (Genesis 1-2) The theory of evolution says there was ***no transcendent Cause***, and we eventually evolved from apes randomly. Does this show that evolutionary science and biblical religion cannot coexist with each other? What are the answers to this question from the viewpoint of Evangelical Christianity? Do evangelicals who hold to the inspiration of the Bible believe that Moses's statement about Creation disproves the "causitory" aspect of the universe put forth by evolutionists?

Context: before answering this question, I highly recommend reading the answers to [Is Christianity testable?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/105659/66156) and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97877/61679 . --- Some Christians believe that Christianity is testable. At least John Lennox [does](https://youtu.be/fSYwCaFkYno?t=2687) . According to such Christians, what is a step-by-step guide on how to perform such a test? I'm putting on my scientific hat here. Specifically, I'm interested in the following points: 1. Is there a set of clear, specific, measurable, non-ambiguous conditions that need to be satisfied for the test to become successful? 2. Is there a set of clear, specific, non-ambiguous steps that need to be carried out in sequence for the test to become successful? 3. Are there clear time frames for each step of the test, or for the test as a whole? 4. Are there clear, specific, non-ambiguous, measurable standards for evaluating the success or failure of the test? 5. Is [falsifiability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) on the table? That is, if the conditions of the test are perfectly satisfied and the steps are performed precisely as instructed, and yet the expected outcome of the test fails to take place, would that falsify the hypothesis underlying the test?

I am interested to see if there are any reliable references in (peer-reviewed) scientific literature or learned articles which indicate that some expressions in scripture pre-date scientific or technical discovery from any other sources. There are two examples which spring to mind but they require full validation as I am not seeking opinion-based answers. Firstly, in Hebrews 11:3, it is stated that 'things which are seen were not made of things which do appear'. This expresses what is now known that, once one goes beyond previous particle theory, it can be demonstrated by the two-slit experiment, by the optical 'quantum entanglement' experiment and by particle accelerator experiments that matter is constructed of 'field energy' and is not made of physical substance. Secondly, the laver in the wilderness journey was made of brass, taken from 'the looking glasses of the women'. But in the visions of John, by revelation of Jesus Christ, what is represented is a 'sea of glass'. Thus the use of the only reflective surface then known, was used to represent what, later, would better be represented by a fully transparent substance, not then known, or not yet manufactured, on earth. Can these be fully substantiated and are there any other possible examples of reliable instances of such concepts expressed in scripture which pre-date their later discovery on earth ? This has a bearing on Christianity in the present, modern world where many Christians feel threatened, or at least disconcerted, by 'science'. If it can be shown, from scripture, that the bible (both OT and NT) contains scientific fact that pre-dated earthly scientific endeavour, then I think that is relevant to Christianity in the present day in which we find ourselves. ------------------ In comment, reference is made to a Previous Question which makes seven *claims* of 'scientific foreknowledge' but does not substantiate or explain any of them in detail, merely giving a biblical reference. However it is a good list of what I am seeking. Further edit upon comment : To more fully explain : mirrors used to be made of bronze. (And the KJV calls this 'looking-glasses' - archaically and untechnically). Nowadays they are made of glass. But the concept of the 'sea' (both constructed and envisaged) is of solid, transparent material. Which did not exist, yet, upon earth until men figured out how to make the stuff.

Are there any publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals lending credence to any Christian miracle? For example, a peer-reviewed publication validating some "unexplainable" healing after intercessory prayer, or a peer-reviewed publication validating some "unexplainable" creative miracle, etc.

A tenet defended by many advocates of classical theism, intelligent design, and natural theology is that the universe provides crystal-clear evidence of design, leaving everyone without excuse, as Christians commonly assert by quoting passages such as Romans 1 or Psalm 19. However, statistics suggest that scientists, especially physicists and biologists, may not necessarily see things that way. The following quote comes from [Leading scientists still reject God - Nature](https://www.nature.com/articles/28478) : > Our chosen group of “greater” scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). **Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)**. Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1. > > This other quote comes from [Scientists and Belief - Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/) : > The Pew Research Center poll of scientists also found that levels of religious faith vary according to scientific specialty and age. For instance, chemists are more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in the other major scientific fields. Meanwhile, younger scientists (ages 18-34) are more likely to believe in God or a higher power than those who are older. > Lastly, the following quote comes from [Eminent scientists reject the supernatural: a survey of the Fellows of the Royal Society](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33) : > Fellows of the Royal Society of London were invited to participate in a survey of attitudes toward religion. They were asked about their beliefs in a personal God, the existence of a supernatural entity, consciousness surviving death, and whether religion and science occupy non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). Overwhelmingly the majority of Fellows affirmed strong opposition to the belief in a personal god, to the existence of a supernatural entity and to survival of death. On 'NOMA’, the majority of Fellows indicated neither a strong disagreement nor strong agreement. We also found that while (surprisingly) childhood religious upbringing and age were not significantly related to current attitudes toward religion, scientific discipline played a small but significant influence: biological scientists are even less likely to be religious than physical scientists and were more likely to perceive conflict between science and religion. > > > > If the universe provides crystal-clear evidence of design, how is it that physicists, who study the fundamental laws underlying everything, and biologists, who deal constantly with the complexity of biology, largely fail to believe in a designer God? How is it that something supposedly so obvious turns out not to be obvious for the vast majority of scientists? **I'm interested in published Christian explanations of why so many scientists are not theists.** --- NOTE: people who want to debate about design vs. non-design hypotheses should take it to chat, either [here](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/156039/discussion-between-dcleve-and-matthew) , [here](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/156073/discussing-romans-120-scientifically) , or [here](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/134852/creationism-vs-materialism-naturalism) .

Two answers to a question regarding the Book of Mormon contain the following: > Without the Book of Mormon, nothing at all remains. If the Book of > Mormon is true, Joseph is a prophet and everything else that entails. > If it's not true, then so is the claim that Joseph is a prophet, and > everything comes crashing down. It might still be a good spiritual > book, but of human origin (and of a human who then wrongly claimed to > be a prophet). > > Joseph Smith himself stated: > > > “Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our > > religion? We have none” (Minutes and Discourse, 21 April 1834, Church > > History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt > > Lake City). > > What impact is made within LDS theology regarding the spiritual content of the Book of Mormon when the historical claims therein are shown by both secular and Mormon scholars to be factually unsupported? > > None. **Just as the bible is not an archaeological/scientific text > (garden of Eden, Noah flood, etc), the Book of Mormon is not as well.** > It, like the Bible, is a religious text. Archaeological/historic > evidence is nice to have but not necessary (though plenty of evidence > exists IMO. The above are partial responses to the question "How does LDS theology suffer when Book of Mormon historical claims are unsupported?" I know that this is a very difficult, perhaps impossible, question to turn towards the Bible since there are multiple hundreds of individuals, cities, nations, and events described in the Old and New Testaments that have been verified through archaeology, contemporary writings, and other scholarly efforts. Having said that, where science appears to contradict biblical content, the traditional Christian response is often strikingly similar to the Mormon response emboldened above: > Some Christian fundamentalists seem to lose their spiritual balance by reacting too much against science. Others look upon the Bible as an ancient science book. It is not. - faithmag.com There are others, though, who appear to rest quite heavily upon external verification: > I often have people tell me that “the Bible’s not a science textbook!” But the Bible is actually a textbook of historical science—and the only such textbook that is totally reliable and infallible. - Ken Ham Again, acknowledging the complication that the reliance upon external verification may be strong **because** it actually exists, the question I am clumsily attempting to ask is: How would traditional Christian theology suffer if there were little or no verification of the Bible's historical content? * I do not know how to ask this without risking closure due to it's suppositional nature and broad target audience. Apologies.

Is there any scientific evidence for God and if so what is the scientific evidence?

[Leonard Susskind - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind) : > Leonard Susskind (/ˈsʌskɪnd/; born June 16, 1940) is an American theoretical physicist, Professor of theoretical physics at Stanford University and founding director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics. His research interests are string theory, quantum field theory, quantum statistical mechanics and quantum cosmology. He is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, an associate member of the faculty of Canada's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and a distinguished professor of the Korea Institute for Advanced Study. Susskind was interviewed for the program [Closer to Truth](https://closertotruth.com/video/susle-002/?referrer=8041) , where he explained his reasons for *agnosticism* regarding the question of God’s existence. The video lasts 7 minutes (you need to click on the *Long Video* option in the *FORMATS* section), but below is my attempt to summarize the essence of his reasons for being agnostic: > Susskind is agnostic about God because, if God exists, He remains hidden behind a metaphorical "curtain" of knowledge. In front of this curtain lies all the scientific understanding we have accumulated from studying nature, while behind it are open questions we have yet to answer—such as the origin of the universe, what happened before the Big Bang, and so forth. Susskind believes we currently have no way to investigate these mysteries, including the concept of God. For him, God is a hypothesis that cannot be confirmed or falsified by any known scientific means. Since the question of God remains undecidable and beyond our current ways of acquiring knowledge, Susskind remains agnostic. Are there Christian responses to this agnostic perspective, which views God as a mysterious hypothesis hidden "behind a curtain" and beyond the reach of scientific investigation? What might Christians suggest to someone like Susskind, a theoretical physicist, as a meaningful way to "investigate" God beyond the limits of scientific inquiry?

I've read several summaries of [William Dembski](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski) 's concept of [specified complexity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity) , including [one by Dembski himself](http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html) , and I've got to confess I have no idea what he is talking about. Is it an attempt to prove God's existence mathematically?

Let's go through it and number the issues with the order of creation. Some issues are with science (I mark with an S), but others are actually apparent even to an ancient reader, within the text itself (I mark with a T) ## Day One 1(S). The Heavens and the Earth are created first. In science, though, Earth is a planet that seems to have been formed long after the sun and much of the Universe. In Genesis 1-5, we read that G-d created light on the first day, before the sun. This matches what we know from science (since the sun is a star that began to exist later). 2(T). However, "evening and morning" are happening without the sun and the moon. Did ancient Israelites believe that the light is not coming from the sun itself? ## Second Day In genesis 1-6 we read that the Raqiya (expanse?) was created, which separates waters below from the waters above. Then 7-10 we see the Yabasha (Dry Land) be created. 3(S). There does not seem to be any "firmament" so Raqiya could refer to an expanse of air, perhaps. Is this how ancient Israelites understood the "hydrologic cycle"? 4(T). Raqiya and Yabasha are named Heaven and Earth, but they were already mentioned in the first verse. So now they are finally made? The verb is "Yaase" when the Raqiya is being made the second time. And when the Dry Land is named Earth refers to something different than the first time. But the first time, Earth is being described as being formless. ## Third Day Plants appear, without the sun, on the third day. 5(S). How can plants exist without photosynthesis? Was there some kind of other mechanism by which plants could arise? Trees, for example, grow by sunlight from the atmosphere sequestering carbon after it is separated from the oxygen, and this carbon adds to the mass of the tree . 6(T). In Genesis 2, the plants have not yet even come up by day 6, so Rashi resolves this by saying they were under the ground. Perhaps they were not yet "made", but the verb is "Totze", the Earth "brought forth" the trees. ## Fourth Day Finally, the sun and the moon are made. And all the stars. 7(S). In science, the stars are massive (some much more massive than the sun), and many would predate the Sun and the Earth. ## Fifth Day Fish, great sea monsters, and Birds are created. ## Sixth Day Finally, all the beasts, cattle and creeping things of the Earth are created. 8(S) From the fossil record, it seems that birds were created after land animals. However, here we could have something really interesting, as birds trace their lineage to the dinosaurs, while the "modern" beasts and cattle are warm-blooded animals that perhaps appeared later. But we have fossils of warm-blooded animals 200 million years ago, while pterosaur fossils go back to 170 million years ago. Can someone please answer the S questions with respect to today's understanding, and T questions with respect to mainstream historical traditional understanding of the issues within the text?

The *teleological argument* is defined as follows: > The teleological argument (from τέλος, telos, 'end, aim, goal'; also known as physico-theological argument, argument from design, or intelligent design argument) is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, **that complex functionality in the natural world which looks designed is evidence of an intelligent creator**. > > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument I'm aware of at least two Bible passages that seem to resonate a lot with the teleological argument: > The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. (Psalm 19:1 NKJV) > 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 **because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.** 20 **For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse**, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 1:18-25 NKJV) However, secular mainstream science tells us a different story from the theistic one, emphasizing naturalistic explanations such as [abiogenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) and [evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) . This perspective excludes the notion of an intelligent creator, largely due to science's steadfast commitment to [methodological naturalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism) . Advocates of this naturalistic approach in scientific research argue that supernatural explanations are not viable because they cannot be tested, falsified, or subjected to empirical investigation. Moreover, there are atheists like Richard Dawkins who champion the theory of evolution as their trump card against the teleological argument: > "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." > > *Richard Dawkins (2015). “The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design”, p.18, W. W. Norton & Company* In response to the question [Is the teleological argument for God completely refuted?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/7050/66156) , this [answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/7054/66156) asserts: > **The teleological argument is effectively dead**. The last gasp at it was by William Dembski and Michael Behe with "irreducible complexity" (the intellectual core of the intelligent design movement), and they simply failed to understand the actual problem and/or came up with handwaving to state that certain things were impossible, when in fact they were not only possible but there were examples of them. > > **That evolution provides the mechanism to produce all the complexity of life seen today is no longer in serious doubt; and that simple physical laws suffice to produce all the complexity of the universe is also no longer in serious doubt**. The only area not completely nailed down is fine-tuning of universal constants, and that makes for an incredibly weak teleological argument since all we know about reality with different constants is that our familiar physics doesn't work. We cannot predict whether there'd be some other complex physical reality admitting evolution, so we can't tell if the numbers are actually finely tuned and thus whether we should be surprised by them. Or in response to the question [How does the theory of evolution make it less likely that the world is designed?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/100494/66156) , the most upvoted [answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/100513/66156) states: > When Laplace wrote his Newtonian, materialist explanation of the universe, Napoleon asked him where God fit into the scheme. "I have no need of that hypothesis, Sire," was Laplace's famous reply. > > Your question is fair enough, but employs a common misrepresentation of science. You can take any scientific theory and then add on God, as if inviting a "plus one." Many scientists do, but only on their own time, so to speak. > > To jettison redundant hypotheses is simply a critical working scientific convention, wielding Ockham's razor. You can always add God back in, but not into the published, peer-reviewed science. > > If you want to use God as part of your causal explanation of physical events, you must offer some experimental way to falsify that hypothesis. And this is where believers usually have a problem. > > Exactly what repeatable experiment would falsify the God hypothesis? A non-biased, double-blind series of unanswered prayers? **It is not so much that evolution "disproves" God. It is simply that it offers a compelling, verifiable explanation of observations that does *not require* God.** > > If some scientists do indeed seem hostile to the idea of God, it is more properly a hostility towards undecidable claims that muddy the waters, subvert the scientific method, and then tend to backload a lot of moral implications and assertions. Even concerning abiogenesis, whose evidential support is arguably much weaker than that of neo-Darwinism, we encounter statements such as the following: > **Is abiogenesis proven?** > > No. It is not proven. > > Regarding evidence, we know there was a time when Earth did not have life, now it does. So life did get started somehow. **There is no evidence of intelligent agency involved and no other problem in science has been solved by invoking non-human intelligence. Thus the operating assumption is that OOL was a natural event.** > > As to how it can happen, that is an open and active area of research. And while it hasn't been solved there are promising avenues of research. > > **Could God have done it? We can't say he couldn't have, but there is no reason to think he did.** > > Source: [Is abiogenesis proven? - r/DebateEvolution](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/13435wt/is_abiogenesis_proven/?rdt=37529) In an era where the teleological argument for God encounters significant challenges from advocates of abiogenesis and evolution, how do Christians who present it navigate these obstacles to make the argument more intellectually compelling to those who don't believe in God?

This is an attempt at an on-topic and useful version of [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/37198/is-creationism-falsifiable) - any edits or feedback to ensure that it meets both of those aims are welcome. To clarify the key term in use: > Falsifiability is the ability of a theory—a working framework for explaining and predicting natural phenomena—to be disproved by an experiment or observation. - Rationalwiki In my opinion, an ideal answer will be structured as an overview of different forms of Creationism with brief descriptions of any relevant theories including references.