عنوان مقاله [English]
The English biologist and philosopher, Richard Dawkins, in his
simplicity argument claims that the basic rules of physics are simple, so
it is actually more likely that the relatively simple laws of nature would
be came into existence for no reason than that they would be designed
by a God whose being would have to be more complex than they are.
Thus, there is no God. By contrast, keith Ward and other theist
philosophers like Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga with
separating "exclusive" and "inclusive" simplicity, defends from
"integrative" simplicity of God. The existence of God integrates all
elements, products of evolution and natural basic rules, in a
comprehensive system, thus, it is simplest explanation, while
Dawkins's materialistic view, is not enough explanatory. So "simplicity
argument", is in fact, "the fallacy of simplicity". In this article, it is
tried to deny Dawkins's simplicity argument.