Discussion of the design argument

Philosophy Debater · Post by **Philosophy Debater** » July 5th, 2012, 8:32 am

Do you believe God is still here with us? Do you believe God designed the world by Himself or do you believe in evolution?

Discuss..

A Poster He or I · Post by **A Poster He or I** » July 5th, 2012, 12:34 pm

Evolution. I don't understand what the God concept is supposed to accomplish given that it just leads to infinite regression.

Philosophy Debater · Post by **Philosophy Debater** » July 5th, 2012, 5:18 pm

Well if someone is inteligent to make a watch then why can't someone make the world? That's basically what it is, and also, how are we all unique?

This does not specifically reflect my own view, but they are just examples of questions raised; it's what we learnt at school this year

plaigarism right? XD ...I know

Chinny · Post by **Chinny** » July 13th, 2012, 12:02 pm

The argument from design, also called the teleological argument for God's existence can be presented as follows:

1) Nature shows evidence of design -- that is, nature consists of parts that work together to produce certain effects and which seem to work towards specific purposes. William Paley, who presented the first elaborate version of the teleological argument, compares nature to the inner workings of a watch. 2) Design requires a designer. If nature shows evidence of design, then there must be a "someone" or "something" that did the designing. 3) God is the best candidate for the designer. 4) Therefore, God is the designer of the universe.

There are numerous problems with the traditional argument from design, even though it happens to be the most popular one among believers. First of all, it assumes that only God can be a designer, and so the later discovery of evolution does pose a threat to the chain of reasoning in this argument.

Furthermore, while the argument *might* show that nature must have a designer, God need not be this designer. There could have been a "big bang" -- or perhaps there might have been many gods. The teleological argument, in other words, does not necessarily give us God -- let alone a Christian one. And even if you wanted to argue that the "God" that this argument arrives at is the Christian one, the teleological argument has nothing to say about God's attributes (all-presence, all-powerfulness and all-goodness). In fact, there is nothing in the teleological argument that prevents us from saying that God designed the universe and then ceased to exist afterwards.

A further objection to the argument from design is that it does not leave room for miracles if you are a believer. It relies on the premise that nature is like a well-oiled machine serving various purposes. It doesn't allow room for the position that there can be unexplained events in nature.

A bad objection would be that the universe is not designed very well because bad design is still design!

So, while the teleological argument is among the most popular among believers today, it is certainly not without its problems.

Cheers.

Doffing81 · Post by **Doffing81** » July 13th, 2012, 3:26 pm

A Poster He or I wrote:Evolution. I don't understand what the God concept is supposed to accomplish given that it just leads to infinite regression.

Couldn't being be the answer to both the accomplishment of God and infinite regression?

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » July 13th, 2012, 4:54 pm

Nature is designed, not by some big god with clever ideas, but by natural regularities.

Nature, unlike the putative big god, does not intend anything.

Spiral Out · Post by **Spiral Out** » July 19th, 2012, 7:50 pm

I believe our world has been designed by the trial and error process of the success of random mutations.

Chinny · Post by **Chinny** » July 19th, 2012, 8:27 pm

"designed by the trial and error process of the success of random mutations."

Such a statement needs to be explained. First, "design" seems to imply purpose, and so it is unclear how the concepts of "design" and "random" can be compatible; if something is random, then it cannot be a thing that designs -- if by design we mean something that is produced specifically for a certain effect. And what are the criteria that determine success? And can you provide an example of a successful mutation?

Your statement also seems to be couched in the language of evolution, which is fine. However, I wonder if the statement mistakes evolution for progress. An evolutionary change is an immediate response to a environmental demand. An evolutionary change isn't necessarily progress, as the environment can change again, thereby making the prior "mutation" useless.

Unless you can explain yourself, the statement comes across as mere pseudo-scientific jargon.

Spiral Out · Post by **Spiral Out** » July 19th, 2012, 8:50 pm

To clarify, I used the term "designed" without the implication of specific intent, but in the context of the result of a set of circumstances. I cannot provide you with an example of a specific single successful mutation, although I believe we are the culmination of many successful mutations brought about by viruses and other mutagens. I agree that evolution does not necessarily indicate progress but that it merely indicates change that is usually beneficial to the life-form in it's current environment. I do not agree that evolution is "an immediate response" as evolution takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years to occur, which smooths out the peaks and valleys of environmentally induced genetic change.

Chinny · Post by **Chinny** » July 20th, 2012, 5:54 pm

Hey,

Thanks for fleshing out your thoughts. "immediate response" is sloppy wording on my part, as I mean "direct response". Yes, it doesn't happen immediately in that temporal sense that you explain.

To get back to the topic of this thread, while your position does not require the existence of a designer like God, isn't it still compatible with such a notion? It isn't clear how your position offers a convincing argument for the non-existence of a divine designer. Evolution and creationism are not diametrically opposed, despite what proponents of each side might think.

Spiral Out · Post by **Spiral Out** » July 21st, 2012, 10:16 am

I don't believe in opposites, just variations. I don't subscribe to anything that can only exist to the exclusion of something else. Evolution itself seems to be a designed phenomenon. One can find a design element with anything observable. Humans are designed to recognize patterns, or designs. We tend to find what we are looking for. If we are willfully searching for evidence of a divine creator then we are bound to find it somewhere. It is said that any seemingly random or chaotic string of numbers, if followed out far enough, will produce a repeating pattern. Is this an example of underlying divine design? If this universe was in fact designed then everything within it must have a designed nature to it. But is it "divine" in the classic sense?

Chinny · Post by **Chinny** » July 21st, 2012, 1:34 pm

Thanks for your response again. The theological argument from design hinges on the reasoning that "designed" implies "designer," and as soon as we begin accepting the word "design" we are letting the theologian get a foot in the door. Perhaps it would be better to use theologically neutral terms like "structure," "co-ordination," or words better suited to the honest search for truth that scientists like to say they partake in (notwithstanding the fact that corporate sources of funding do control the direction of scientific research....but that's another issue for another day).

But if we want to maintain the word "design" and argue that there are benefits to using the word (despite the theological baggage it comes with), we have to be careful that by "design" we do not mean the result of some external agent imposing its will on something. It is not as if nature has an over-arching "goal" in mind for its inhabitants; it would be quite silly to think nature is a designer in that sense. There might indeed be "design" in evolution, but it is not one that is due to some being (be it God or the universe) imposing its plan on the universe.

The easiest thing to do, I think, is eliminate the word "design" from this matter entirely and stick to theologically neutral language, lest we get caught up in the theological rhetoric that comes with accepting such terms.

Cheers.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » July 22nd, 2012, 4:27 am

The word 'design' is tricky. I think it was Daniel Dennet , or it may have been Richard Dawkins, who compared two separate concepts of what 'design' means. There is the blueprint which precisely specifies each process until the end result. There is also the recipe which specifies that each successive process depends upon the effect of the previous process. When making a roux sauce you don't add the liquid until the roux is fast boiling. If you add the liquid too soon you have to either throw it away or go to the trouble of mixing in the lumps, or serve a lumpy sauce. Thus the second meaning of 'design' allows for the non rational and the random error. It is the second meaning of 'design' that atheists intend.

The God believers must believe that God is entirely deterministic except for when he intervenes miraculously in nature and in history.

PaulNZ · Post by **PaulNZ** » July 22nd, 2012, 4:56 am

Belinda you wrote:

"The God believers must believe that God is entirely deterministic except for when he intervenes miraculously in nature and in history."

I think that there are several "versions" of god or gods held by any number of people around the planet and they are all valid for the individuals holding that particular belief. A deist, pantheist or panentheist might argue for example that their god is within time and nature and not deterministic, other than being the creative energy within all matter in the universe that gives nature the appearence of design, born out of process.

God evolves too doesn't he/she?

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » July 22nd, 2012, 10:50 am

Yes, of course, but I wrote 'God' with a capital letter that refers to the personal name of the Abrahamic god. God is the personal name of this particular god. I don't believe in him because he is inconsistent, but his name is still 'God'. The god of the pantheists in which I do believe is called 'God' in translations of Spinoza the great pantheist, However Spinoza himself wrote in Latin so he actually called the pantheist deity 'Deus' which is slightly less confusing. I wish to goodness the Abrahamic god had another name but he hasn't, except for the Jehovah's Witnesses who call their deity Jehovah. They have a good point there.

It's true that the orthodox Abrahamic god does evolve, although apparently not for Muslims or old fashioned traditional Jews. The Christian version of God, depending as he does upon the life of Jesus as contrasted with some book of rules, is much more able to evolve and has done so in the past, even to the extent of being able to encompass the scientific enlightenment.