A Response to Nilofar Shidmehrs God Existed or Exists :: Nilofar Shidmehr God Existence Essays

A Response to Nilofar Shidmehrs God Existed or ExistsIntroductionIn recent years, scientists hold back come to the amazing discovery that the cosmos of carbon-based life in our universe is dependent upon a set of extremely improbable initial conditions. In their article, The Anthropic Teleological Argument,1 Betty and Cordell lay out some of these conditions in cosmogeny and biochemistry. Had various initial conditions of the universe been slightly altered, life would have been impossible. Betty and Cordell then argue that the existence of an intelligent creator is the best explanation for the universe. Needless to say, their conclusions have not gone unchallenged.Nilofar Shidmehr, in her article God Existed or Exists has presented four objections to Betty and Cordells Anthropic Teleological Argument (ATA). First, she argues that at best, ATA only shows that God existed, still not that God exists. Secondly, she argues that the dictum that the greater cannot come from the le sser is false. Thirdly, she argues that There is a huge difference between having an explanation and telling that there must(prenominal) be an explanation.2 Fourthly, Shidmehr presents three theories that increase the chances that the universe randomly evolved for the existence of carbon-based life. Thus, there is no need to invoke an intelligent designer. Given these four objections, it seems evident that Shidmehr believes that ATA fails.In this paper, I will defend ATA against only two of Shidmehrs objections. I will argue against her first objection by showing that a wholesome analysis of ATA does give us reason to believe that God currently exists. Secondly, I will argue against her third objection by showing that the existence of God is a good explanation for the initial conditions of the universe. So without further adoI. God Existed AND ExistsShidmehrs first objection is to argue that there is no reason to believe that even if ATA is sound, God would not have to curren tly exist. Shidmehr writesIf we look around ourselves, we can see several well-designed buildings and goods whose creator or designer had died the existence of a creation and the continuity of its existence, since it came to being, are not dependent upon the existence of its creator.3Secondly, Shidmehr goes on to say that there are several stories we can theorise to account for the demise of God. Suppose there was some sort of SuperGod that was unpleased with Gods creation of the universe causing SuperGod to destroy God.