However, they “add to the pile” of evidence for theism. He says that the design argument isn’t an irrefutable argument for theism.

When we observe nature, we see instances of the most exquisite design, which generally implies the existence of a designer. Plantinga also discusses the argument that turned me from atheist to creationist – the argument from design. Thus, it really does look like the universe was “rigged” to produce life, as the theist believes. The same goes for the weak and strong nuclear forces if either had been even slightly different, life, at any rate life even remotely similar to the sort we have, could probably not have developed (p. He starts with the “fine tuning” argument, which says that science has found many, many aspects of the universe that would forbid life if they were much different from how we actually observe them:įor example, if the force of gravity were even slightly stronger, all stars would be blue giants if even slightly weaker, all would be red dwarfs in neither case could life have developed. When Plantinga moves on to discussing what he sees as the deep concord between science and theism, he brings up many familiar arguments. I suppose he spends so much time on the issue because there is so much discussion of it in today’s society.

When it is time to move on to the deep concord that exists between science and theism, you have reached page 191 of 350. That’s because Plantinga spends most of his book discussing the issue. Alvin Plantinga’s book, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, I spent all my time discussing how he deals with the superficial conflict between theism and science.

Where the conflict really lies