The Argument of Design

[McCulloch]

The argument of design is one of the “proofs” for the existence of God. In its basic form, this argument infers from intelligent order and created beauty of the universe that there is an intelligent Designer and Creator of the universe.

This argument has been around for a long time and has been debated many times.

The question for debate is,

• Does the apparent design of the universe prove the existence of an intelligent Designer and Creator of the universe?

For reference: Design Arguments for the Existence of God from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[McCulloch]

William Paley's watchmaker's argument were refuted long time ago in scientific arena.

1. The watchmaker's father
   Just like all watches have watchmakers, so do all watchmakers have fathers. Therefore, with the watchmaker analogy, god has a father. Who is the father of god? And who is the father of the father? And so forth. This either leads to an endless series or to an ultimate God who is uncaused. Which is more rational, belief in an uncaused God or belief in an uncaused universe?
2. Watches out of nothing
   The things (components) used by the watchmaker to make watches already exists, but the theists claim that their god created things ex nihilo, from nothing. So the analogy is false here, too.
3. False analogy
   The watchmaker is a false analogy because it assumes that because two objects share one common quality, they must have another quality in common.
   1. A watch is complex
   2. A watch has a watchmaker
   3. The universe is also complex
   4. Therefore the universe has a watchmaker
   The last step is wrong, because it concludes something that is not supported by the criteria. It is best clarified by another example:
   1. Leaves are complex structures
   2. Leaves grow on trees
   3. Money bills are also complex structures
   4. Therefore money grow on trees (which, according to the idiom, they don't)
4. Contradiction:
   The argument first assumes that a watch is different from nature, which is uncomplicated and random. It then states that since the universe is so complicated, complex, and ordered it too must have a creator. Thus, the argument gives the universe two incompatible qualities.
5. Circular argument:
   Watchmaker argument assumes that the universe, black holes, stars, planets, snowflakes, life, etc., are created. Actually physics, chaos theory and evolutionary theory tell us how most complex things in the world could have evolved on their own, without any help from any "watchmaker". When we see a beautiful cloud formation in the sky we perceive the laws of nature playing there, not the watch maker's!

Eventually there are a lot of fallacies in William Paley's watchmaker's argument but I hesitate to point out that many of them have been pointed out in Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker.

In conclusion, Paley's watchmaker's argument is not a proof, it is an analogy. As most other analogies it is quite lame. It is contradictive, misses many important features, does not aid us in knowing who the watchmaker is, and most important does not stand alone as evidence of god, but must rely on external evidence. Therefore, the argument does not the least prove that the world was designed by a superhuman being.

[QED]

Chesil beach near where I live has millions of beautiful smooth pebbles. Someone unfamiliar with the natural processes involved might well argue that the pebbles must have been crafted by eye and hand.

This might not seem particularly convincing, but when human engineers find that they can implement systems to churn out novel designs for things like supersonic aircraft wings by harnessing the principles of evolution by natural selection, we must realize that "design" can also be the product of non-intelligence. Thus we are let down badly by our vocabulary; if we had always used an alternative word to distinguish non-intelligent design then we would be better prepared mentally for the concept of a universe that organizes itself according to it's own material properties.

[harvey1]

if we had always used an alternative word to distinguish non-intelligent design then we would be better prepared mentally for the concept of a universe that organizes itself according to it's own material properties.

Are you referring to self-organization?

[harvey1]

William Paley's watchmaker's argument were refuted long time ago in scientific arena.

Well, as a methodological principle it has been refuted. Although, as a metaphysical principle there can be no scientific resolution.

Just like all watches have watchmakers, so do all watchmakers have fathers. Therefore, with the watchmaker analogy, god has a father. Who is the father of god? And who is the father of the father? And so forth. This either leads to an endless series or to an ultimate God who is uncaused. Which is more rational, belief in an uncaused God or belief in an uncaused universe?

An uncaused universe? You mean like the whole universe actually came to exist like 5 minutes ago? Assuming you consider that unlikely, can I ask why? I think your answer underlies the reason why God is much more parsimonious than an uncaused universe.

The things (components) used by the watchmaker to make watches already exists, but the theists claim that their god created things ex nihilo, from nothing. So the analogy is false here, too.

Well, the analogy wasn't constructed to show that the universe is a watch. The analogy was to show in what way the universe is like a watch (i.e., in terms of its sophisticated structure that requires an explanation.

The watchmaker is a false analogy because it assumes that because two objects share one common quality, they must have another quality in common.

Analogies eventually break down, that's why they are called analogies. One might say the watchmaker analogy is false because there are natural processes to explain how design can happen in the natural world (e.g., natural selection), but this is missing the point of the analogy. The issue isn't that there are no other processes that could be used to bring about the design in the universe, the issue is that the state space of the natural world is not large enough to explain the occurrence of highly complex design. If a watch could happen through natural processes, there would still be a problem in explaining how a sophisticated watch could happen without some kind of intelligence operating behind that natural process. This is, of course, what natural selection solves in many respects. However, it is not known how successful natural selection is at solving the most pressing design issues that exist. This is why many biologists are looking at dynamical systems (e.g., emergence) to explain the design in areas where natural selection seems to lack sufficient answers. In any case, the discussion becomes very muddied on the biological side of things because few agree on how to define complexity along with the limitations of natural selection in arriving at that complexity. For this reason, the design argument is more objectively analyzed by looking at cosmology, astrophysics and particle physics since natural selection is much more limited in this arena (although not completely absent since Lee Smolin has introduced a natural selection mechanism to try and explain design in the Cosmos).

Therefore, the argument does not the least prove that the world was designed by a superhuman being.

Well, I don't think it is helpful to suggest that all theists are postulating some superhuman being. I think it's a strawman argument that only reflects bad on your own desire to make the argument look easier to reject.

What I would ask you to consider is this. If the coincidences in the physical constants are just coincidences, then why should the universe exist in such a peculiar state as having needed coincidences? Why didn't we just find out that there were no such coincidences and atheism was able to explain all of the this without appealing to multiple universes? Why are there singularity theorems that prevent big bang/inflationary cosmology from postulating an eternal in the past universe?

It seems to me that a whole lot of people just want to be in denial about God, and they'll do anything or say anything to make that denial look rational. But, in the end, the universe is extremely unlikely. A fact that atheists just don't like to dwell on.

[QED]

Are you referring to self-organization?

Yes, of course Harvey. Self-organization is an established principle. As you know there are numerous instances of this well-documented phenomenon. However, the way people go on about the need for the intelligent design of complex systems would make it seem that they are unaware of such things.

Now I was happily nodding in agreement with you while reading your last post, even the bit about postulating a superhuman being as being a strawman (although in fairness I think that the theologians built this one for us) -- however I think your very last paragraph let you down:

It seems to me that a whole lot of people just want to be in denial about God, and they'll do anything or say anything to make that denial look rational. But, in the end, the universe is extremely unlikely. A fact that atheists just don't like to dwell on.

This is obviously your Achilles heel: That the universe is extremely unlikely is, as you must realize, not a safe thing to say. If, as Smolin and others have suggested, our universe is but one member of a collection of universes then all bets are off. Smolin shows how his hypothesis can be tested as well, so it's more than mere speculation. If the values of the physical constants are found to be near optimal for the production of black holes (which tests so far have been in agreement with) then we have positive indicators supporting his theory.

[harvey1]

This is obviously your Achilles heel: That the universe is extremely unlikely is, as you must realize, not a safe thing to say. If, as Smolin and others have suggested, our universe is but one member of a collection of universes then all bets are off.

It's still unlikely that there are many casinos. A likely situation is one in which there is some necessary reason why a casino must exist. However, as my thread on brute facts demonstrates, pushing this issue up a level to multiple universes doesn't resolve the issue of unlikeliness for the atheist. In addition, the singularity theorems are quite strong. I would be curious how Smolin thinks he can avoid them.

[McCulloch]

Just like all watches have watchmakers, so do all watchmakers have fathers. Therefore, with the watchmaker analogy, god has a father. Who is the father of god? And who is the father of the father? And so forth. This either leads to an endless series or to an ultimate God who is uncaused. Which is more rational, belief in an uncaused God or belief in an uncaused universe?

An uncaused universe? You mean like the whole universe actually came to exist like 5 minutes ago? Assuming you consider that unlikely, can I ask why? I think your answer underlies the reason why God is much more parsimonious than an uncaused universe.

Or 50 billion years ago. It does seem unlikely that the universe came to exist 5 minutes ago complete with evidence that it had existed a lot longer. However, I still don't see the philosophical difference in believing in an uncaused universe billions of years old and an uncaused God at whatever age you want to make him.

The things (components) used by the watchmaker to make watches already exists, but the theists claim that their god created things ex nihilo, from nothing. So the analogy is false here, too.

Well, the analogy wasn't constructed to show that the universe is a watch. The analogy was to show in what way the universe is like a watch (i.e., in terms of its sophisticated structure that requires an explanation.)

Here is another analogy. I walk on the beach and see many stones and pebbles. They are all different shapes and sizes. I do not take particular notice of any of them. Then I see a ball bearing. It's lack of sophistication, its perfectly round shape point to only one thing. It was deliberately designed. We naturally assume that those things which are smooth, regular and uniform have been deliberately designed and those which are irregular and non-uniform are not the products of deliberate design. The natural universe does not seem deliberately designed to me.

Therefore, the argument does not the least prove that the world was designed by a superhuman being.

Well, I don't think it is helpful to suggest that all theists are postulating some superhuman being. I think it's a strawman argument that only reflects bad on your own desire to make the argument look easier to reject.

Sorry. Most theists, especially Christian theists, postulate a superhuman God. One who takes direct interest in human affairs. Who has a human son who's death and subsequent resurrection somehow absolves humans from the guilt of sinning against this god.

What I would ask you to consider is this. If the coincidences in the physical constants are just coincidences, then why should the universe exist in such a peculiar state as having needed coincidences? Why didn't we just find out that there were no such coincidences and atheism was able to explain all of the this without appealing to multiple universes? Why are there singularity theorems that prevent big bang/inflationary cosmology from postulating an eternal in the past universe?

Honestly, I don't know. Neither do you. So we seem to be back to either leaving that as an unknown for the time being or assigning it to the God of the gaps.

It seems to me that a whole lot of people just want to be in denial about God, and they'll do anything or say anything to make that denial look rational. But, in the end, the universe is extremely unlikely. A fact that atheists just don't like to dwell on.

Not so. Winning the lottery is a very unlikely event yet it happens once for every draw.

[QED]

This is obviously your Achilles heel: That the universe is extremely unlikely is, as you must realize, not a safe thing to say. If, as Smolin and others have suggested, our universe is but one member of a collection of universes then all bets are off.

It's still unlikely that there are many casinos.

Really? I'm inclined to think otherwise.

A likely situation is one in which there is some necessary reason why a casino must exist. However, as my thread on brute facts demonstrates, pushing this issue up a level to multiple universes doesn't resolve the issue of unlikeliness for the atheist.

I'm sorry, I can't locate this particular demonstration. Or was it simply that you claim many universes to be less parsimonious? If so you must know how that is a fallacy. The existence of any evolved product is more parsimonius than a brute-fact product. Evolution can always reduce to brute fact, while providing a gearing mechanism to higher complexity.

In addition, the singularity theorems are quite strong. I would be curious how Smolin thinks he can avoid them.

Can you flesh this out a bit more for me please?

[harvey1]

It does seem unlikely that the universe came to exist 5 minutes ago complete with evidence that it had existed a lot longer. However, I still don't see the philosophical difference in believing in an uncaused universe billions of years old and an uncaused God at whatever age you want to make him.

Yeah, but McCulloch, if there was an uncaused universe, then what could possibly be used to determine that a 5 minute old universe is any less likely than one that came into existence 13.7 billion years ago (approx)?

The natural universe does not seem deliberately designed to me.

Would it seem to you to be any more of a designed universe if you and I weren't here and all that existed was a fluctuating superstring (i.e., assuming we could somehow "see" this alternative world that just never got started in the first place)?

Honestly, I don't know. Neither do you. So we seem to be back to either leaving that as an unknown for the time being or assigning it to the God of the gaps.

Ah, but Paley's watchmaker argument preceded the modern cosmological arguments for God's existence. Why should that be the case if there weren't a God? I mean it seems very plausible to me that if there were no God that evidence of this sort just wouldn't be so reoccurring in our scientific finds.

But, I want to point out something very important. All the arguments for God's existence you discount as ... it could be this.... it could be that... type of arguments. However, at no point do these arguments move you away from your absolute certainty of atheism. This proves that you guys are not being epistemically responsible. Given good reasons to believe in something, such evidence should sway us to belief, or at least agnosticism. But, notice it doesn't do that for atheists. Therefore, the only conclusion to make is that atheists are atheists for non-epistemic reasons.

Not so. Winning the lottery is a very unlikely event yet it happens once for every draw.

Here's a perfect example. The argument is that maybe someone got lucky and won the lottery. However, your argument isn't just that someone might have gotten lucky. It is that someone did get lucky and you know it to be true... because? Atheist faith. That's the only reason why you know it.