The Great Controversy, page-4

The natural law argument

This one centers on the idea that the laws of physics needed to be set. It then assumes that the being who determined them was God. Russell finds this one to be outdated given advances in physics since the days of Newton, particularly in quantum mechanics. Since atomic physics is more statistical than classical, Russell contends that it seems odd to claim that an intelligence is involved in physics. Saying:“There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design.”

The argument from design

This perennial favorite argues that lifeforms are so well suited to their environments that a designer must have been involved. Russell dismisses this as absurd. He not only notes that Darwin explains the observed facts better through evolutionary theory but also points out how terrible some of the design choices are if they were, in fact, choices. He asks the audience:“Do you think that, if you were given millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?”


After looking at a few others, he concludes that the arguments for the existence of a God are all lacking in rigor. Since Russell, famously, held that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, the failure of these proofs leaves him with no reason to assume God’s existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot