I am, for me, coming to these arguments from a very neutral stand point. However, I must say that this argument does very little for me, but I will try and give it a fair shack anyway. The design argument is an argument by analogy, that is A is like B and B does C so A does C.
A very famous presentation of this argument takes the form of the watchmaker analogy. It goes like this: Imagine you are walking down the beach and you come across a pocket watch in the sand. From this pocket watch you now know that there is a watchmaker.
You may know very little about the watchmaker but you do know he (or she) exists. Of course by observing the quality of the watch you can come to some conclusion as to the skill and talent of the watchmaker. So what has this to do with god?
Well the argument says that you know there is a watchmaker for the watch. Look around and observe this giant watch we find ourselves in that we call an universe, surely there is a universe maker. This example uses the analogy that a watch is like the universe and the watch has a maker so therefore the universe has a maker.
The other example of this argument that was used in the brilliant philosopher " " is that the Universe is like a house and a house has a designer (architect and builders) there fore the universe has a designer. Hume pointed out though that there are many problems with this argument. The design analogy argument is more or less a a variation of both the cosmological and teleological arguments so I am only going to look at the major flaw of this argument that is unique to this variation of the argument.
Bad Analogy - Cosmological: The watch analogy is comparing the universe to a watch. Well, that is blatantly (in my opinion) a crap comparison. A watch that is found in the sand could not possibly come into being just by the interactions of the beach.
We know this because we have hundreds of beaches around the world and people have been observing them for eons and not once in all that time has a beach started making watches. We do not know that the universe could not come into being on its own without the interaction of a creator, we don't have universes to observe being made to see if they can make them.
Bad Analogy - Teleological: The next variation of this is the design argument that we know the watch had a designer because it is not made by nature.
A human had to design the cogs and what have you, nature would never put glass and metal together that way. The universe is a very complex machine like a watch only a lot more so, therefore it had to have a designer. My problem with this is that you are saying the universe is orderly like a watch.
Well how do you know this. You could say that everything is self sustaining like a well designed watch. Well duh, of course everything in nature is self sustaining, the parts of it that aren't go away, period.
Self sustainance isn't a sign of design, it is a sign of time passing. Well everything else is so orderly like the gears of a watch and run so smooth, it had to have a designer. My response is says who.
The lack of rough edges doesn't mean there was a designer per say, it could simply mean that over the course of the history of the universe that the rough edges have been knocked off and worn smooth. You can find a shiny smooth stone that was made that way through the natural currents of a river or you can find one that has been cut by a jeweler one had a designer and artist, the other didn't. So in this case the analogy doesn't follow.
We as of now haven't proved anything either way as far as I am concerned. This argument doesn't work, but that doesn't rule out all arguments now does it. I will look at some other arguments later, but feel free to tell me what you think right now.
Peace out and remember to Keep it Real!
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." -- Romans 1:20 (NIV to be specific)
When I refer here to Natural Religion I am referring to an inference of a supreme deity based on observations of nature and self, I may also refer to this as "God's general revelation.
" Natural Religion for for these notes is not in any way shape or form referring to Nature based religions including but not limited to some forms of Wica. If anyone believes that questioning the existence and nature of God based on these observations is blasphemous, then I refer you to the above passage which states that God's general revelation is a basis for a belief in god, therefor I conclude that disguising said general revelation as a basis for belief in the divine is acceptable within the scope of the Christian religion.
Three major arguments for a Natural Religion belief in God are the Design Arugement, Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument.
The Design Argument in unique among these three because it wouldn't only tell us about the existence of God but would also give us a limited insight into the nature of God. The design argument follows the basic as above so below analogy. There is a house and the house has an architect, the house is like the universe, therefor the universe must have an architect.
Second the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God roughly goes that I observe a grand cosmos therefore something must of made that grand cosmos that entity would be God. The Teleological Argument is very similar and it more of less goes that the universe appears to have some various kinds of order therefore some being must of created that order, and that being would be God. There are of course many other arguments for the existence of God other than the above two, however, most of those arguments do not fall into the category of Natural Religion.
Sorry kidos but it is now time for me to get ready to go to work. When I come back we will take a closer look at those three arguments, until then remember to Keep it Real.
News RSS