Collins And Rowe's Argument For The Existence Of God

The question of whether there is a God has been debated by many philosophers, religious experts, and even your average citizens. Many of those people have attempted to argue why God is or is not real. This paper is going to present two different arguments by the philosophers: Robin Collins and William Rowe. The first argument by Collins is an argument for the existence of God, who designed our incredibly complex universe. The explanation of Collin’s argument will be followed by Rowe’s argument against the existence of God, which is in relation to intense suffering that exists in this world. With those two arguments at hand, the question is, are the conclusions compatible?
Robin Collin’s created the fine-tuning argument in order to argue for the existence of God. He considers it “the most persuasive current argument for the existence of God” (Collins 194). He simply argues that the universe is far too complex and perfect for it to have all happened by chance, therefore, it must have a designer. There are examples to show
Ultimately, no they are not compatible. Collins establishes that God does exist, and that he is the designer and fine-tuner of the universe and life as we know it. Rowe establishes (kind of) that God does not exist, due the fact that gratuitous suffering exists and there is no way to prove if there is meaning behind the gratuitous suffering or not. These two arguments establish two completely different ideas and conclusions about God’s existence. The only way these conclusions could maybe be considered compatible, is with Rowe’s friendly atheism. This would mean compatible in the sense that Collins is justified in his belief that God exists for his own reasons. The arguments themselves are arguing two different things: design and suffering. They both somewhat use probability in order to make way to their