Paley's Design Argument for God

[2ndRateMind]

So, this idea is deceptively simple.

If I am walking on a beach, and see a stone, it is no great surprise. The stone is a common, simple object, with simple physical and chemical properties, and needs no explanation.

If I am walking on a beach, and come across a watch, then Paley thinks I should have more respect. A watch is not random, and could not have occurred by random processes. Indeed, the watch is a complex object, built with a specific purpose, to tell the time, and Paley thinks that I should thus infer and deduce from the existence of the watch I have found, the existence of a watch-designer and maker unknown to me. Seems reasonable.

By analogy, Paley then argues that the existence of the world, indeed, the universe, the most huge and complex of all machines, suggests the existence of a universe designer, and maker, commonly known as God.

So, do you think this to be a valid argument, and solid reasoning?
Or, do you think that somewhere, there is a flaw?

As before, Paley's Design Argument comprises part of the syllabus of my course of study, and, as before, all your various perspectives will be interesting and useful to me.

Best wishes, 2RM

[Tcg]

So, why should we need an endless succession of Gods, each more magnificent than the God subsequent, to create the universe?

To explain the existence of the god you are claiming created the universe.

All we need is one, adequate God, to do the job. And anything else is superfluous.

If there is no need to wonder where this adequate god came from, then there is no reason to wonder where the universe came from. If the god is self existent, as you are trying so hard not to admit you are claiming, then why can't the universe be so?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 11 by Tcg]

I am not against wonder. I think it to be wholly healthy attitude, entirely consistent with our proper humility.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[wiploc]

That's all fine. But I cannot help but notice that city planners, who design whole communities, and allocate commercial, industrial and residential zones, and the intricate network of roads, electricity, gas and telecommunications that connect them all in ever more complex ways, are somewhat smaller and less imposing than their creations.

Smaller I can grant. But to say that humans are less imposing than the things they build is, at best, subjective.

One does not need an endless succession of city designers, each greater than and more imposing than the last, to design a city.

So the watch had to come from somewhere, but a city designer doesn't? A city designer isn't complex and regular? Or are we doing special pleading?

So, why should we need an endless succession of Gods, each more magnificent than the God subsequent, to create the universe?

According to the argument, if god is as complex and regular as a rock, he has a planner.

All we need is one, adequate God, to do the job. And anything else is superfluous.

God is simple.
God is irregular.
God was created by a planner.

If you don't like the third one, you have to pick on of the first two. Or you can admit that Paley's argument doesn't work.

[2ndRateMind]

Or you can admit that Paley's argument doesn't work.

Really, it's no skin off my nose whether Paley's argument works or not. My own preferred attitude is that it will forever be impossible to 'prove' objectively that God exists, and that if it could be proven, that would be 'a bad thing'.

But I also think we should give Paley a fair crack of the whip, and if we are to dismiss his work, it should be done with rigorous philosophy, rather than complacent prejudice.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

We are left with an endless list of creator gods. Each one greater and more complex than the previous. Where do you stop?

All we need is one, adequate God, to do the job. And anything else is superfluous.

If there is no need to wonder where this adequate god came from ...

We can simply posit a God who is eternal (existing outside time) and everlasting (existing forever inside time), and consider these attributes to be components of His adequacy. And if we did so, we would not be inconsistent with either Christian theology or Occam's Razor*.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*Thou shalt not multiply entities beyond necessity or Prefer the simplest of all possible explanations.

[Tcg]

I am not against wonder. I think it to be wholly healthy attitude, entirely consistent with our proper humility.

This is perhaps the most nonresponsive response I have ever read. Other than the fact that you used the word "wonder", there is no reason to conclude that you read my reply as you didn't address any of the issues it addressed.

[Tcg]

We can simply posit a God...


*Thou shalt not multiply entities...

Do you even read the arguments you present? If you do, how could you possibly have overlooked your glaring error of "positing a god" when Occam's razor, which you claim supports your "Argument for God", suggests the exact opposite of what you are claiming?

[2ndRateMind]

Do you even read the arguments you present? If you do, how could you possibly have overlooked your glaring error of "positing a god" when Occam's razor, which you claim supports your "Argument for God", suggests the exact opposite of what you are claiming?

Hmmm. Seems to me, you are the one that thought an endless succession of Gods necessary to make Paley's argument work, and I am defending the idea that only one, adequate, God is needed.

Or do you think that no Gods are necessary, and that matter and energy and space and time and the logical and mathematical and physical and chemical laws that govern them just spontaneously generated themselves out of nothing? There is a point beyond which 'the rule of parsimony' becomes counter-productive, simply because when misapplied it rules out any possible explanation.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Tcg]

Hmmm. Seems to me, you are the one that thought an endless succession of Gods necessary to make Paley's argument work, and I am defending the idea that only one, adequate, God is needed.

No, I am the one who pointed out the fact that if you follow the so called logic of Paley's argument, you'd need an endless number of god's to explain the existence of the god who created the universe.

You are the one asserting that only one adequate god is needed. You've yet to provide any defense other than a faulty application of Ockham's razor.

Or do you think that no Gods are necessary, and that matter and energy and space and time and the logical and mathematical and physical and chemical laws that govern them just spontaneously generated themselves out of nothing?

Resorting to a Straw Man argument is never helpful in a discussion, but I fully understand why you feel the need to do so at this point.

There is a point beyond which 'the rule of parsimony' becomes counter-productive, simply because when misapplied it rules out any possible explanation.

You'll need to provide evidence to support this claim before it's value can be evaluated.

[wiploc]

Or you can admit that Paley's argument doesn't work.

Really, it's no skin off my nose whether Paley's argument works or not.

You started this thread to discuss it, so I'm discussing it.

My own preferred attitude is that it will forever be impossible to 'prove' objectively that God exists, and that if it could be proven, that would be 'a bad thing'.

But I also think we should give Paley a fair crack of the whip, and if we are to dismiss his work, it should be done with rigorous philosophy, rather than complacent prejudice.

I confess to prejudice, but I'm hardly complacent.

You represented Paley as arguing that something as complex and regular as a stone would need a creator. Now you seem to be saying that a "sufficient" stone would not need one.

Have I misrepresented? If so, it isn't on purpose.

It's seems to me that Paley generated an infinite regress of causes, but that you think you one can ignore that and draw the line wherever one prefers by calling "sufficient."

And if one coincidentally happens to call "sufficient" upon reaching one's own god, well, I can't think of a move more complacently prejudiced than that.