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

[2ndRateMind]

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.

Sorry, I would have thought that was all reasonably self-explanatory. But let me render the thought process explicit for you.

We can have no Gods, one God, two Gods, several Gods, many Gods, or even an infinite number of Gods, which you think is the consequence of Paley's position.

These Gods can be inadequate, adequate, or more than adequate to the job of creating the universe.

So, let us take some examples as to the options.

We can have no Gods, and think that even if they existed, they would be inadequate to creating the universe. Clearly that won't get the universe designed and implemented, and the brute fact is that the universe exists. Or we can think that the non-existent God(s) would be adequate or more than adequate if they existed. But they don't, and the universe does.

We can have one inadequate God, and that won't do, either.

We can have one adequate God, which could account for the universe.

We can have one more than adequate God, which could account for the universe also.

We can have two inadequate Gods, two adequate Gods, two more than adequate Gods etc. And all the possible combinations of adequacy and inadequacy and more than adequacy. To the total of two. And provided both Gods are not inadequate, we can get the universe built.

Similarly with several, many and an infinite number of Gods.

Now, having generated all possible explanations, we can apply Occam.

Firstly, we can rule out all the inadequate Gods, because they are unnecessary.

Secondly, we can rule out all more than adequate Gods, because all that is required is adequacy.

Thirdly, we can rule out multiple adequate Gods, because all that is required is one of them.

And we are left with a single, adequate, God.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[wiploc]

Thirdly, we can rule out multiple adequate Gods, because all that is required is one of them.

Are you disavowing Paley to take up this new line?

Or is it your position that adequate gods lack complexity or regularity?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 22 by wiploc]

No. As I think I said before, my position is simply that God is eternal and everlasting, and so doesn't require a creator. He has always existed, and always will, both beyond and within time.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 23 by 2ndRateMind]

That seems frustratingly evasive. Which part(s) of Paley's argument are you rejecting?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 24 by wiploc]

I'm sorry if I seem evasive. Thing is, I'm away for the Christmas festivities tomorrow, and will be gone for a week or so. So I'd like to wind down the discussion temporarily, but will be happy to pursue some of the stock criticisms of him with you on my return.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 24 by wiploc]

I'm sorry if I seem evasive. Thing is, I'm away for the Christmas festivities tomorrow, and will be gone for a week or so. So I'd like to wind down the discussion temporarily, but will be happy to pursue some of the stock criticisms of him with you on my return.

Best wishes, 2RM.

That works! I'll see you when you get back.

But I hardly think that, "You have abandoned Paley and are arguing something else," is a stock criticism.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 26 by wiploc]

That's great! I look forward to it.

As for abandoning Paley, I was only trying to explain to Tcg why Paley's argument does not necessarily involve an infinite regression of Gods. Sorry if that was confusing.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 26 by wiploc]

That's great! I look forward to it.

As for abandoning Paley, I was only trying to explain to Tcg why Paley's argument does not necessarily involve an infinite regression of Gods. Sorry if that was confusing.

Best wishes, 2RM.

But, but, but ...

Okay, I await your return.

[2ndRateMind]

Hi guys! I'm back! Christmas was fun. But now its's over, my duties to the family duly expedited, and we can get on with discussing fripperies and irrelevancies like 'Is there a God?' and 'Can we prove that?', and, 'Do the differing answers we might all supply to such questions matter anyway?'

I trust you all had too much to eat, and too much to drink, over the holiday. And we still have the new year to look forward to! Whatever your faith and philosophy, I hope for you all the very best for 2018.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[William]

[Replying to post 19 by Tcg]

You've yet to provide any defense other than a faulty application of Ockham's razor.

Occam's Razor can be used in any circumstance which requires it. It is not for the use of one particular type of circumstance.

It's method can be used for philosophical topics. How 2ndRateMind is using it is not misapplication.