[pic]Before we answer this question, we must distinguish five questions that are often confused.
• First, there is the question of whether something exists or not. A thing can exist whether we know it or not.
• Second, there is the question of whether we know it exists. (To answer this question affirmatively is to presuppose that the first question isanswered affirmatively, of course; though a thing can exist without our knowing it, we cannot know it exists unless it exists.)
• Third, there is the question of whether we have a reason for our knowledge. We can know some things without being able to lead others to that knowledge by reasons. Many religious people think God's existence is like that.
• Fourth, there is the question of whetherthis reason, if it exists, amounts to a proof. Most reasons do not. Most of the reasons we give for what we believe amount to probabilities, not proofs. For instance, the building you sit in may collapse in one minute, but the reliability of the contractor and the construction materials is a good reason for thinking that very improbable.
• Fifth, if there is a proof, is it a scientific proof,a proof by the scientific method, i.e., by experiment, observation, and measurement? Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs.
1. Explica cómo puede ser que tengamos “a reason for our knowledge” sin que podamos dar “a scientific proof” del mismo.
I believe we can answer yes to the first four of these questions about the existence of God but not to thefifth. God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof, but not scientific proof, except in an unusually broad sense.
There are many arguments for God's existence, but most of them have the same logical structure, which is the basic structure of any deductive argument. First, there is a major premise, or general principle. Then, a minor premise states someparticular data in our experience that come under that principle. Finally, the conclusion follows from applying the general principle to the particular case.
In each case the conclusion is that God exists, but the premises of the different arguments are different. The arguments are like roads, from different starting points, all aiming at the same goal of God. In subsequent essays we will explorethe arguments from cause and effect, from conscience, from history, and from Pascal's Wager. The next essay explores the Argument from Design.
2. ¿Se pueden dar pruebas o argumentos para decir que Dios existe? ¿Se puede dar una prueba científica?
3. ¿Qué es un argumento?
Argument from Design (del Orden o del Diseño)
[pic]The argument starts with the major premise that where there is design,there must be a designer. The minor premise is the existence of design throughout the universe. The conclusion is that there must be a universal designer.
Why must we believe the major premise, that all design implies a designer? Because everyone admits this principle in practice. For instance, suppose you came upon a deserted island and found "S.O.S." written in the sand on the beach. You wouldnot think the wind or the waves had written it by mere chance but that someone had been there, someone intelligent enough to design and write the message. If you found a stone hut on the island with windows, doors, and a fireplace, you would not think a hurricane had piled up the stones that way by chance. You immediately infer a designer when you see design.
When the first moon rocket took offfrom Cape Canaveral, two U.S. scientists stood watching it, side by side. One was a believer, the other an unbeliever. The believer said, "Isn't it wonderful that our rocket is going to hit the moon by chance?" The unbeliever objected, "What do you mean, chance? We put millions of manhours of design into that rocket." "Oh," said the believer, "you don't think chance is a good explanation for the...