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

[ST88]

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

Of course not. Order does not imply design, nor does chaos imply the lack of intent.

We recognize that we can build things and set systems in motion, so, with our God handbook, we assign the creation of larger things and larger systems to this (or some other unknown) larger creator. It's simple psychology -- a generalization error.

[QED]

Please forgive me for butting in with a couple of replies to the questions that Harvey directed towards McCulloch, but the points have been raised before and I want to clear them up with Harvey so they don't keep on emerging:

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)?

You're talking about comparing the probability of finding the universe the way we see it around us right now with the probability of finding it before the evolution of complexity -- surely then the current arrangement of matter/energy is infinitely less likely?

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.

It proves no such thing. An absolute certainty of atheism can be equally well justified by arguments in the same way as theism can. You don't need me to paraphrase your bland statement above in atheistic terms do you?

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.

Ditto.

[harvey1]

You're talking about comparing the probability of finding the universe the way we see it around us right now with the probability of finding it before the evolution of complexity -- surely then the current arrangement of matter/energy is infinitely less likely?

Why? Are you suggesting that there's something "higher up" that determines or suggests that a state of simplicity is a more likely state than a complex state? Would this be an underlying Platonic set of rules?

It proves no such thing. An absolute certainty of atheism can be equally well justified by arguments in the same way as theism can. You don't need me to paraphrase your bland statement above in atheistic terms do you?

I don't see how your response is applicable. An atheist thinks the universe is ultimately run by blind brute facts, therefore we should see less coincidences and more blindness as we venture away from biological processes which tend to "muddy the waters" so to speak. We didn't see this with respect to the fundamental physical constants, therefore this suggests that there are metaphysical principles that contradict the atheist's blind brutefactness world.

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.

Ditto.

I really do not understand your reply here. If the nature of the world is such that coincidence plays such a huge part in its formation, then one very good explanation is that these factors are not coincidences but a metaphysical process which we cannot see. That should at least move someone away from a strong atheist conviction to something lesser. However, what we see is the opposite. The more evidence that shows coincidence is playing a bigger and bigger part, the less atheists want to listen and the more they want to ignore such talk. Why? I don't understand that.

[QED]

You're talking about comparing the probability of finding the universe the way we see it around us right now with the probability of finding it before the evolution of complexity -- surely then the current arrangement of matter/energy is infinitely less likely?

Why? Are you suggesting that there's something "higher up" that determines or suggests that a state of simplicity is a more likely state than a complex state? Would this be an underlying Platonic set of rules?

You said

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)?

To this I attempted to point out that a 5minute old universe (I'm assuming it's the one stocked with galaxies, people, memories etc.) is less likely than a fresh universe just starting out on its evolutionary path due to the enormous number of potentially different states that all the material/energy might otherwise have assumed.

I don't see how your response is applicable. An atheist thinks the universe is ultimately run by blind brute facts, therefore we should see less coincidences and more blindness as we venture away from biological processes which tend to "muddy the waters" so to speak. We didn't see this with respect to the fundamental physical constants, therefore this suggests that there are metaphysical principles that contradict the atheist's blind brutefactness world.

Well, I started a new topic Whence came the order in the cosmos because it seems to me that we can't venture away from biological processes because they are just one small example of a principle that applies (fractal-like) to everything in the cosmos. As far as brute fact is concerned, the coincidences of fine-tuning physical law etc. all reduce to something far less than the sort of "complex specified information" that is popularly assumed.

I really do not understand your reply here. If the nature of the world is such that coincidence plays such a huge part in its formation, then one very good explanation is that these factors are not coincidences but a metaphysical process which we cannot see. That should at least move someone away from a strong atheist conviction to something lesser. However, what we see is the opposite. The more evidence that shows coincidence is playing a bigger and bigger part, the less atheists want to listen and the more they want to ignore such talk. Why? I don't understand that.

Well, I'm presenting something which has excellent explanatory power while abolishing coincidence and a great deal of metaphysics at the same time. We have to work on this question of coincidence so maybe my new thread is the place to do it.

[QED]

"Once we were driving in the midwest and we pulled into a McDonald's. Someone came up to me and asked me why I have Feynman diagrams all over my van. I replied, 'Because I am Feynman!' The young man went, 'Ahhhhh!'" - Richard Feynman

Talking about coincidence -- I've noticed that your signature seems to appear and disappear whether you're replying to me or not in your posts. Given the nature of my avatar, I think I could be forgiven for suspecting something fishy going on

[harvey1]

...I attempted to point out that a 5minute old universe (I'm assuming it's the one stocked with galaxies, people, memories etc.) is less likely than a fresh universe just starting out on its evolutionary path due to the enormous number of potentially different states that all the material/energy might otherwise have assumed.

Why should logical factors make a difference in regards to a higher probability of a simpler universe? This assumes that logical factors have some kind of precedent over non-logical factors (e.g., the universe starting off 5-minutes ago).

Well, I started a new topic Whence came the order in the cosmos because it seems to me that we can't venture away from biological processes because they are just one small example of a principle that applies (fractal-like) to everything in the cosmos. As far as brute fact is concerned, the coincidences of fine-tuning physical law etc. all reduce to something far less than the sort of "complex specified information" that is popularly assumed.

I'll try to respond to that thread, but the list of new threads is starting to exceed my ability to keep up with them...