设计论点被挽救了?从不可能性的角度评估当代的争论

Juuso Loikkanen
{"title":"设计论点被挽救了?从不可能性的角度评估当代的争论","authors":"Juuso Loikkanen","doi":"10.21697/spch.2020.56.3.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Some features within the physical universe appear to be so well-ordered that they have been regarded as evidence of the existence of a supernatural being who has designed them. This history of the so-called design argument is millennia-long, and various formulations of the argument have been presented. In this paper, I explore one contemporary version of the design argument proposed by the Intelligent Design movement, and analyze its advantages and disadvantages in comparison to one of the most famous classical versions of the argument.","PeriodicalId":21980,"journal":{"name":"Studia Philosophiae Christianae","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The design argument salvaged? Assessing the contemporary argument from improbability\",\"authors\":\"Juuso Loikkanen\",\"doi\":\"10.21697/spch.2020.56.3.03\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Some features within the physical universe appear to be so well-ordered that they have been regarded as evidence of the existence of a supernatural being who has designed them. This history of the so-called design argument is millennia-long, and various formulations of the argument have been presented. In this paper, I explore one contemporary version of the design argument proposed by the Intelligent Design movement, and analyze its advantages and disadvantages in comparison to one of the most famous classical versions of the argument.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21980,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studia Philosophiae Christianae\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studia Philosophiae Christianae\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21697/spch.2020.56.3.03\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Philosophiae Christianae","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21697/spch.2020.56.3.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

物质宇宙中的一些特征似乎是如此有序,以至于它们被认为是超自然存在的证据,是他设计了它们。所谓的“设计论”的历史已经有上千年之久了,人们提出了各种各样的论证形式。在本文中,我探讨了由智能设计运动提出的一个当代版本的设计论证,并分析了它与最著名的经典版本的论证的优缺点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The design argument salvaged? Assessing the contemporary argument from improbability
Some features within the physical universe appear to be so well-ordered that they have been regarded as evidence of the existence of a supernatural being who has designed them. This history of the so-called design argument is millennia-long, and various formulations of the argument have been presented. In this paper, I explore one contemporary version of the design argument proposed by the Intelligent Design movement, and analyze its advantages and disadvantages in comparison to one of the most famous classical versions of the argument.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信