matt wrote: The "chance" argument is an intrasystematic critique of naturalism that doesn't have to assume theism. When someone says that the universe is too ordered to have happened by chance, they are saying that the naturalistic creation myth is too unlikely to be true--there has to be some other explanation for the formation of the cosmos. It doesn't follow that the Christian explanation is true, just that the naturalistic one is unlikely.
So how unlikely is "too unlikely"? Or do you mean that the order evident in the universe is MORE likely given theism than naturalism?
No, it's apples and oranges.
The atheist argument from evil is a similar type of argument. When atheists argue that the existence/prevalence of evil precludes the existence of the Christian God, they are not suggesting that naturalism better explains the origin of evil--there is no evil in naturalism. They are just pointing out that the existence/prevalence of evil is mutually exclusive with the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolent God. Evil is a problem for the Christian, but it doesn't necessarily demand atheism (it's possible that there is a god, but that god is malevolent, impotent, or ignorant). Just like the problem of evil is an intrasystematic critique of Christianity, the "chance" argument is an intrasystematic critique of naturalism.
"The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. He is the man who has lost everything except his reason."--G. K. Chesterton