Theists: Respond to David Hume's argument against the Design argument

[Pump that iron!]

Here it is:

The design argument
One of the oldest and most popular arguments for the existence of God is the design argument ? that all the order and 'purpose' in the world bespeaks a divine origin. A modern manifestation of this belief is creationism. Hume gave the classic criticism of the design argument in Dialogues concerning Natural Religion and An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. Here are some of his points:

1. For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose".

2. Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But in order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to why we ought to compare the world to a machine - as in Paley's watchmaker argument - when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal.

3. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer?

4. If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?

5. Often, what appears to be purpose, where it looks like object X has feature F in order to secure some outcome O, is better explained by a filtering process: that is, object X wouldn't be around did it not possess feature F, and outcome O is only interesting to us as a human projection of goals onto nature. This mechanical explanation of teleology anticipated natural selection. (see also Anthropic principle)

6. The design argument does not explain pain, suffering, and natural disasters.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H...esign_argument

Please keep responses logical, rational, and reasonable. Please no verse-laden tirades.

No flaming.

Discuss.

[timmy47]

i like number 2 and 3.

[JoeDirtBody]

if anyone wants to see how to use logic to destroy arguements, u have to look at hume. time and time again in our philosophy classes humes arguements cannot be argued... well with logic. hes definetly one of my favorites in phil.

[Pump that iron!]

Originally Posted by JoeDirtBody

if anyone wants to see how to use logic to destroy arguements, u have to look at hume. time and time again in our philosophy classes humes arguements cannot be argued... well with logic. hes definetly one of my favorites in phil.

Hume is one of THE top five philosophers of all time. He should be on anyone's top 5 list.

Oh, and I did get an A on my essay in which I attacked his theory of the self.

But you are right, the guy is a tank in the philosophical world.

[fender23]

In no way do I claim to be a philosopher and I have only taken one low-level logic course so I'm sure I might be committing some fallacies or whatever so go easy please.

1. "For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation"

I believe in design and part of my belief is that a designer created laws of nature/processes of nature. Snowflake formation and crystal generation are parts of the designed processes of nature. Therefore, snowflake formation and crystal generation are not mindless processes but like I said, part of a designed system. So, in my opinion this first point is invalid.

2. Hume violated his own argument when he himself compared the Universe to an inert animal. Didn't he just say that the Universe was incomparable? How did he make this comparison? Because he saw similarities between the way the Universe functions and animals. Anytime there are similarities between two things, they can be compared.

3. These are valid points, but he's straying off topic. The point of these arguments was to break down the designer theory - not get into specifics of which religion is correct. That we getting ahead of ourselves. And as for who designed the designer: great question. I have no answers and I can't begin to fathom one.

4. Again, good points, definitely something to contemplate. That's just a choice one has to make.

5. He's right, sometimes where it appears purpose exists it may actually not. But this does not mean purpose does not exist. This is also kind of the fundamental issue between the design theory and the non-design theory. Atheists see the Universe as we know it having come into existence by accident or without purpose. Intelligent Design proponents believe there is purpose. Isn't the issue of purpose the difference between us? But ponder this: Even in natural selection there is a purpose is there not? The purpose being to weed out the weak so that the future offspring is the strongest it can possibly be.

6. This one I find severely begging the question. Define pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is all about how you look at it and is dependent upon the individual. Look at people who are in to BDSM. And as for natural disasters?? You've got to be kidding me. Who says that these are disasters? Just because we don't like the outcome of nature's consistent processes being carried out doesn't mean these are "bad." Like I said, I believe the universe follows many processes. These processes are what make the Universe what it is. The big bang could be considered a natural disaster but look what came from it.

Okay, I tried my best. I'm not saying this is a perfect counter/critique of his arguments, but just my perspective.

[All Business]

Originally Posted by fender23

In no way do I claim to be a philosopher and I have only taken one low-level logic course so I'm sure I might be committing some fallacies or whatever so go easy please.

1. "For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation"

I believe in design and part of my belief is that a designer created laws of nature/processes of nature. Snowflake formation and crystal generation are parts of the designed processes of nature. Therefore, snowflake formation and crystal generation are not mindless processes but like I said, part of a designed system. So, in my opinion this first point is invalid.

2. Hume violated his own argument when he himself compared the Universe to an inert animal. Didn't he just say that the Universe was incomparable? How did he make this comparison? Because he saw similarities between the way the Universe functions and animals. Anytime there are similarities between two things, they can be compared.

3. These are valid points, but he's straying off topic. The point of these arguments was to break down the designer theory - not get into specifics of which religion is correct. That we getting ahead of ourselves. And as for who designed the designer: great question. I have no answers and I can't begin to fathom one.

4. Again, good points, definitely something to contemplate. That's just a choice one has to make.

5. He's right, sometimes where it appears purpose exists it may actually not. But this does not mean purpose does not exist. This is also kind of the fundamental issue between the design theory and the non-design theory. Atheists see the Universe as we know it having come into existence by accident or without purpose. Intelligent Design proponents believe there is purpose. Isn't the issue of purpose the difference between us? But ponder this: Even in natural selection there is a purpose is there not? The purpose being to weed out the weak so that the future offspring is the strongest it can possibly be.

6. This one I find severely begging the question. Define pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is all about how you look at it and is dependent upon the individual. Look at people who are in to BDSM. And as for natural disasters?? You've got to be kidding me. Who says that these are disasters? Just because we don't like the outcome of nature's consistent processes being carried out doesn't mean these are "bad." Like I said, I believe the universe follows many processes. These processes are what make the Universe what it is. The big bang could be considered a natural disaster but look what came from it.

Okay, I tried my best. I'm not saying this is a perfect counter/critique of his arguments, but just my perspective.

1. Even if snowflakes etc actually do result from designed processes of nature, they themselves are not designed and so Hume's point is valid.

2. Hume didn't violate his own argument. He was asking why we would compare our universe to a machine rather than an inert animal to demonstrate that, as we have no basis for comparison, there is no reason to pick one over the other. He wasn't promoting the idea that our universe really does resemble a giant inert animal.

3. While not directly addressing the designer argument, the point is still relevant. Generally when people argue for a designer they have in mind a human like intelligence behind it and Hume just points out that this "designer" could be so dissimilar to our notions of what a designer "really" is as to make such a label inappropriate.

4. If it's just a choice one has to make, then for parsimony (i think that's what it is) or ockams razor or some other such rule, the simpler explanation is preferred in science i.e. the one not having a superfluous designer.

5. While i agree that absence of evidence is not (conclusive) evidence of absence, it is ridiculous to then come down on the side of presence when the evidence is suggesting absence. So since purpose doesn't appear to exist and even though that doesn't necessarily mean that purpose doesn't exist, why would you think that purpose exists? Purpose implies an agent and natural selection is not an agent. It may weed out the weak but that's is just what it does. Describing it as purpose is, as Hume says, projecting human goals, concepts etc onto nature.

6. The notions of "pain" and "suffering" are not subjective only the experience of them is. While different people suffer under different conditions, that is not to say that people don't suffer or that "suffering" as a concept doesn't exist and so Hume's point is valid. Similarly, why would a designer design the earth so that tectonic plates collide etc?

[JoeDirtBody]

Originally Posted by Pump that iron!

Hume is one of THE top five philosophers of all time. He should be on anyone's top 5 list.

Oh, and I did get an A on my essay in which I attacked his theory of the self.

But you are right, the guy is a tank in the philosophical world.

yup. i havent taken enough phil. but as for now hume would be my favorite, as well as kant. im taking 9 hours of phil next semester, should be fun.

[fender23]

Originally Posted by All Business

1. Even if snowflakes etc actually do result from designed processes of nature, they themselves are not designed and so Hume's point is valid.

2. Hume didn't violate his own argument. He was asking why we would compare our universe to a machine rather than an inert animal to demonstrate that, as we have no basis for comparison, there is no reason to pick one over the other. He wasn't promoting the idea that our universe really does resemble a giant inert animal.

3. While not directly addressing the designer argument, the point is still relevant. Generally when people argue for a designer they have in mind a human like intelligence behind it and Hume just points out that this "designer" could be so dissimilar to our notions of what a designer "really" is as to make such a label inappropriate.

4. If it's just a choice one has to make, then for parsimony (i think that's what it is) or ockams razor or some other such rule, the simpler explanation is preferred in science i.e. the one not having a superfluous designer.

5. While i agree that absence of evidence is not (conclusive) evidence of absence, it is ridiculous to then come down on the side of presence when the evidence is suggesting absence. So since purpose doesn't appear to exist and even though that doesn't necessarily mean that purpose doesn't exist, why would you think that purpose exists? Purpose implies an agent and natural selection is not an agent. It may weed out the weak but that's is just what it does. Describing it as purpose is, as Hume says, projecting human goals, concepts etc onto nature.

6. The notions of "pain" and "suffering" are not subjective only the experience of them is. While different people suffer under different conditions, that is not to say that people don't suffer or that "suffering" as a concept doesn't exist and so Hume's point is valid. Similarly, why would a designer design the earth so that tectonic plates collide etc?

1. I think you are wrong on this one. If snowflakes resulted from a designed process then they would have to have been thought out (designed). The process of snowflake formation is designed so why wouldn't the product of this process be designed as well?

2. Maybe I misunderstood that sentence. But, I believe that you can make a more suitable comparison between the two things. Like I originally posted, although there is only one universe, there are many things that it is of similar nature to. Maybe not specifically, but generally it shares a lot of the same properties as designed systems do, therefore we can make this comparison logically. **And just because it shares similarities with designed systems it does not mean that the Universe is designed (so don't mistake my argument as proof of a designed universe) it just simply means that we are able to make the comparison.

3. This is one still isn't relevant and does nothing to help his argument. The whole point of this is to poke holes in the designer argument but in this point he establishes a designer as a given. Secondly, where in the designer argument does it give specifics as to what that designer is (specific religion)? It only establishes that there is indeed a designer as opposed to pure coincidence and accident. So, once again, this does nothing to help his cause and is completely irrelevant.

4. Define simpler? To me, it is more simple to believe that this is designed as opposed to happening by accident. Personally, I find it difficult rather than simple to attribute the "perfectness" of this environment of ours to accident. I see what you are saying, but shouldn't the simpler explanation be chosen only if it is correct? Surely, just because one explanation is simpler than the other doesn't make it any more valid. A simple explanation for the world would be that it is flat and unmoving while in reality it is much more complex.

5. In what way is the universe etc. suggesting absence of purpose? Quite the opposite--even admitted by Hume. He said that although something may appear to have purpose doesn't mean it does. So he himself admitted that purpose would appear to be there. So you are wrong to say that absence of purpose is suggested.

6. Again, with this question we are digging much more deeper than "is there a designer" to trying to answer some of life's and Christianity's most perplexing answers. I didn't want to get into religion but pain and suffering (evil) all stems from Adam and Eve's choice to eat the apple from the tree of knowledge (this gave them the knowledge of good and evil).

Also, you asked why plate tectonics would be designed which you are falsely assuming that plate tectonics are bad. And like I said, yes, while we humans may not like the initial results of these movements in plate tectonics they are actually vital to our Earth and human survival.

Look at the "Natural Resources" section towards the bottom of the page:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/tectonics.html

I'm sorry in advance for using this website. However, they list references. One of the references is a former president of the National Academy of Sciences. Go about 2/3 down to the "Benefits" section:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/tsunami04e.htm

Here's an article:
http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=100741

[JBDW]

Originally Posted by fender23

1. I think you are wrong on this one. If snowflakes resulted from a designed process then they would have to have been thought out (designed). The process of snowflake formation is designed so why wouldn't the product of this process be designed as well?

I question your first statement. A designed process means nothing other than that the process was designed. Even if one was to assume that process of snowflake formation was designed, that does not mean each individual snowflake is specifically designed to be the way it is. This is a causal leap you're making.

Originally Posted by fender23

2. Maybe I misunderstood that sentence. But, I believe that you can make a more suitable comparison between the two things. Like I originally posted, although there is only one universe, there are many things that it is of similar nature to. Maybe not specifically, but generally it shares a lot of the same properties as designed systems do, therefore we can make this comparison logically. **And just because it shares similarities with designed systems it does not mean that the Universe is designed (so don't mistake my argument as proof of a designed universe) it just simply means that we are able to make the comparison.

Designed systems are only realised to be designed by virtue of comparison to the natural world, where such systems do not exist. Detecting design requires the usage of comparison, so to argue that this universe is designed requires you to invoke a universe which is not designed, to show the difference between the two. Otherwise you are comparing the universe to itself in order to prove that it is designed. This makes no sense.

Originally Posted by fender23

3. This is one still isn't relevant and does nothing to help his argument. The whole point of this is to poke holes in the designer argument but in this point he establishes a designer as a given. Secondly, where in the designer argument does it give specifics as to what that designer is (specific religion)? It only establishes that there is indeed a designer as opposed to pure coincidence and accident. So, once again, this does nothing to help his cause and is completely irrelevant.

He establishes the designer as a given to illustrate the idea that it does not prove theism by any means. It's just a further extension of a 'what if' scenario.

Originally Posted by fender23

4. Define simpler? To me, it is more simple to believe that this is designed as opposed to happening by accident. Personally, I find it difficult rather than simple to attribute the "perfectness" of this environment of ours to accident. I see what you are saying, but shouldn't the simpler explanation be chosen only if it is correct? Surely, just because one explanation is simpler than the other doesn't make it any more valid. A simple explanation for the world would be that it is flat and unmoving while in reality it is much more complex.

Somewhat agree with this; my disagreements would not be relevant to the thread.

Originally Posted by fender23

5. In what way is the universe etc. suggesting absence of purpose? Quite the opposite--even admitted by Hume. He said that although something may appear to have purpose doesn't mean it does. So he himself admitted that purpose would appear to be there. So you are wrong to say that absence of purpose is suggested.

I think this particular point of Hume's is more of a critique of the fine-tuning argument, which is a part of the argument from design as a whole.

[ElderJefferson]

Originally Posted by JBDW

I question your first statement. A designed process means nothing other than that the process was designed. Even if one was to assume that process of snowflake formation was designed, that does not mean each individual snowflake is specifically designed to be the way it is. This is a causal leap you're making.

I think of it as "who designed the laws of physics?", which in turn govern the world around us (with some rare exceptions - ie miracles).

[JBDW]

Originally Posted by ElderJefferson

I think of it as "who designed the laws of physics?", which in turn govern the world around us (with some rare exceptions - ie miracles).

Even if a creator of the laws were presupposed, that does not necessarily mean that the products of the laws are specifically designed. For something to be specifically designed would require active involvement on the part of the designer in its creation, i.e. direct involvement, and not an indirect one. You could argue (validly) that if a creator were presupposed and he created all physical laws, then he is ultimately responsible for all that exists. However, it is a far cry from saying that he actively designed all that exists.

Processes are unthinking. They cannot in and of themselves design anything, so it is also incorrect to argue that a product of a blind process can be called a designed product.


It's somewhat akin to deism vs theism. Indirect involvement vs active involvement.

[fender23]

Originally Posted by JBDW

Designed systems are only realised to be designed by virtue of comparison to the natural world, where such systems do not exist. Detecting design requires the usage of comparison, so to argue that this universe is designed requires you to invoke a universe which is not designed, to show the difference between the two. Otherwise you are comparing the universe to itself in order to prove that it is designed. This makes no sense.

I think we are getting caught up in wordplay here and I disagree with your above statement. Say instead of calling our universe a "universe" let's call it a "system." Designed or not, wouldn't you agree that we can call it a system?

Here is the first definition of a system:
a group of independent but interrelated elements comprising a unified whole; "a vast system of production and distribution and consumption keep the country going"

If you agree then why can we call it a system? Well, because it exhibits similar patterns and behavior that systems do.

Now, if we look at systems known to be designed and we can find similarities between these designed systems and the system that we refer to as the "universe"...then we can therefore make the comparison. IT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN PROVE THE "UNIVERSE SYSTEM" IS DESIGNED, BUT WE CAN LOGICALLY MAKE A COMPARISON.

[Pump that iron!]

Originally Posted by fender23

In no way do I claim to be a philosopher and I have only taken one low-level logic course so I'm sure I might be committing some fallacies or whatever so go easy please.

1. "For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation"

I believe in design and part of my belief is that a designer created laws of nature/processes of nature. Snowflake formation and crystal generation are parts of the designed processes of nature. Therefore, snowflake formation and crystal generation are not mindless processes but like I said, part of a designed system. So, in my opinion this first point is invalid.

Interesting point -- I think it is a very good point actually.

2. Hume violated his own argument when he himself compared the Universe to an inert animal. Didn't he just say that the Universe was incomparable? How did he make this comparison? Because he saw similarities between the way the Universe functions and animals. Anytime there are similarities between two things, they can be compared.

Incorrect. Hume was saying we have no OTHER universe to compare ours to -- when we assume OUR universe is a designed one, what does an undesigned universe look like? We don't know because no other such universe exists for us to compare and reference. It is like saying, A is darker than B without having either A or B -- when you make a comparative claim, you cannot posit it without having someone to COMPARE WITH.

3. These are valid points, but he's straying off topic. The point of these arguments was to break down the designer theory - not get into specifics of which religion is correct. That we getting ahead of ourselves. And as for who designed the designer: great question. I have no answers and I can't begin to fathom one.

He isn't arguing about which religion is correct. He is positing that even if our universe WAS designed, how do we know it is the workings of a God? In other words, if the design argument holds up we don't know if God is act work or not. It is completely on topic -- he is mentioning a major implication.

4. Again, good points, definitely something to contemplate. That's just a choice one has to make.

Yes they are good points.

5. He's right, sometimes where it appears purpose exists it may actually not. But this does not mean purpose does not exist. This is also kind of the fundamental issue between the design theory and the non-design theory. Atheists see the Universe as we know it having come into existence by accident or without purpose. Intelligent Design proponents believe there is purpose. Isn't the issue of purpose the difference between us? But ponder this: Even in natural selection there is a purpose is there not? The purpose being to weed out the weak so that the future offspring is the strongest it can possibly be.

Natural selection is exactly that -- it is NATURAL. There is no inherent purpose being guided by a divine origin -- it is nature's way of weeding out the weak. It is no a purpose driven event -- just HAPPENS naturally.

6. This one I find severely begging the question. Define pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is all about how you look at it and is dependent upon the individual. Look at people who are in to BDSM. And as for natural disasters?? You've got to be kidding me. Who says that these are disasters? Just because we don't like the outcome of nature's consistent processes being carried out doesn't mean these are "bad." Like I said, I believe the universe follows many processes. These processes are what make the Universe what it is. The big bang could be considered a natural disaster but look what came from it.

As humans, we reference disasters on their affect on societies -- that is, their affect on the survival of human groups. If an event threatens the survival of human beings, it is a disaster. This is my working definition. We have no choice but to reference the effect of natural processes on how they affect US as humans. Global warming, if humans didn't exist, would be a neutral event but when compared to the implications it would have on human life and animal life, it IS a problem.

Okay, I tried my best. I'm not saying this is a perfect counter/critique of his arguments, but just my perspective.

Thanks for at least trying -- some theists seem scared ****less of Hume. LOL

[All Business]

Originally Posted by fender23

1. I think you are wrong on this one. If snowflakes resulted from a designed process then they would have to have been thought out (designed). The process of snowflake formation is designed so why wouldn't the product of this process be designed as well?

2. Maybe I misunderstood that sentence. But, I believe that you can make a more suitable comparison between the two things. Like I originally posted, although there is only one universe, there are many things that it is of similar nature to. Maybe not specifically, but generally it shares a lot of the same properties as designed systems do, therefore we can make this comparison logically. **And just because it shares similarities with designed systems it does not mean that the Universe is designed (so don't mistake my argument as proof of a designed universe) it just simply means that we are able to make the comparison.

3. This is one still isn't relevant and does nothing to help his argument. The whole point of this is to poke holes in the designer argument but in this point he establishes a designer as a given. Secondly, where in the designer argument does it give specifics as to what that designer is (specific religion)? It only establishes that there is indeed a designer as opposed to pure coincidence and accident. So, once again, this does nothing to help his cause and is completely irrelevant.

4. Define simpler? To me, it is more simple to believe that this is designed as opposed to happening by accident. Personally, I find it difficult rather than simple to attribute the "perfectness" of this environment of ours to accident. I see what you are saying, but shouldn't the simpler explanation be chosen only if it is correct? Surely, just because one explanation is simpler than the other doesn't make it any more valid. A simple explanation for the world would be that it is flat and unmoving while in reality it is much more complex.

5. In what way is the universe etc. suggesting absence of purpose? Quite the opposite--even admitted by Hume. He said that although something may appear to have purpose doesn't mean it does. So he himself admitted that purpose would appear to be there. So you are wrong to say that absence of purpose is suggested.

6. Again, with this question we are digging much more deeper than "is there a designer" to trying to answer some of life's and Christianity's most perplexing answers. I didn't want to get into religion but pain and suffering (evil) all stems from Adam and Eve's choice to eat the apple from the tree of knowledge (this gave them the knowledge of good and evil).

Also, you asked why plate tectonics would be designed which you are falsely assuming that plate tectonics are bad. And like I said, yes, while we humans may not like the initial results of these movements in plate tectonics they are actually vital to our Earth and human survival.

Look at the "Natural Resources" section towards the bottom of the page:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/tectonics.html

I'm sorry in advance for using this website. However, they list references. One of the references is a former president of the National Academy of Sciences. Go about 2/3 down to the "Benefits" section:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/tsunami04e.htm

Here's an article:
http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=100741

1. The results of a designed process don't "have to have been thought out (designed)". They are the result.

"The process of snowflake formation is designed so why wouldn't the product of this process be designed as well?" Because it is the product.

EDIT: And besides, why have you just assumed that the process of snowflake formation is designed? Whether or not there is an ID is what we are currently arguing about.

2. Ok, if you accept that all you are able to do is make a comparison then that is fine and lends no weight to the intelligent design argument. Hume's point was that we couldn't say "look, our universe is SO complex it MUST have been designed" since we don't know what an undesigned universe would look like. But since you seem willing to restrict yourself to "there are some similarities between the universe and other non-universe entities" then that's not a problem (except if you wanted to use such an argument for ID).

3.I already accepted the fact that this point does not directly address the veracity (yes dictionary.com) of the ID argument. As mentioned he takes it a step further in pointing out the uselessness of the designer argument. It is a bit rich to call it completely irrelevant, but feel free to ignore it and deal with it if ID is ever proven to be the case.

4. One explanation is that an inexplicably self ordered divine mind designed the universe. The other is that there is an inexplicably self ordered natural world. The one that doesn't contain a superfluous designer is simpler. This really shouldn't be an issue with ID since it has no actual backing, but in the case of two competing theories, both able to explain events equally well, the simpler is chosen. Obviously, if the correct one was known then it would be chosen.

Your flat earth example isn't relevant as that is demonstrably false and doesn't explain various phenomena. The simpler is only chosen if both seem able to explain the data.

Ofcourse if you want to believe in a superfluous designer because personally it makes more sense, then that's fine but you have no grounds for convincing other people.

5. I guess i emphasised that too much. What i was trying to say was in reply to you saying "just because when purpose appears, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's there, it doesn't mean that's it not there" (paraphrase) was that that is no reason to then think that purpose is there.

It's like someone arguing If x there's y. There is x, therefore y. Then someone criticises the argument and says, but you don't know that x is. And then the reply to that is, but you don't know that it isn't!

Sure, i don't know that, but you still have to establish your own position that x actually is. Just because my position is bad, doesn't mean yours is good.

Anyway, my main point was that natural selection was not an agent and so can not be described as having purpose, which you didn't address

6. I didn't "falsely assume" that plate tectonics were "bad" (although i can see how i gave that impression), but was asking why would a designer make such a destructive and inconvenient event essential to our survival? Surely there are better ways to create ore deposits etc.

We are not digging much more deeper than "is there a designer". The gist of the designer argument is that certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause or designer. As i said, wouldn't the fact that natural disasters both cause damage etc but also provide resources suggest that is happened because of undirected causes? It does to me anyway. The same argument goes for suffering. Why would a designer create such a thing as pain when there would be so many better ways to notify us of bodily harm.

[JBDW]

Originally Posted by fender23

I think we are getting caught up in wordplay here and I disagree with your above statement. Say instead of calling our universe a "universe" let's call it a "system." Designed or not, wouldn't you agree that we can call it a system?

Here is the first definition of a system:
a group of independent but interrelated elements comprising a unified whole; "a vast system of production and distribution and consumption keep the country going"

If you agree then why can we call it a system? Well, because it exhibits similar patterns and behavior that systems do.

Now, if we look at systems known to be designed and we can find similarities between these designed systems and the system that we refer to as the "universe"...then we can therefore make the comparison. IT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN PROVE THE "UNIVERSE SYSTEM" IS DESIGNED, BUT WE CAN LOGICALLY MAKE A COMPARISON.

And how do you know that the 'designed systems' you use for comparison are in fact designed, to begin with? You compare it with something that is not designed, do you not? Same for the universe. You compare the universe with something that is not designed in order to determine whether or not the universe is designed. Unfortunately, if you presume the universe to be designed, then the only other option you have is to invoke a non-designed universe to show that ours is designed. Until then, there is no basis for arguing that the universe is designed.


You can't make a comparison, because no matter what 'designed system' you invoke, it is still inviolably a part of the universe. Ultimately you are comparing the universe, including the system you invoke, to the system you invoke. Again, it doesn't make sense to do so.

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by Pump that iron!

1. For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose".

The process of snowflake and crystal generation have been designed, hence the order. Everything "simple" and complex is designed.

2. Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But in order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to why we ought to compare the world to a machine - as in Paley's watchmaker argument - when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal.

We can claim that everything that we have observed thus far in this universe has had order and hence designed. Is this universe as a whole designed? Since we cannot answer this question empirically, we would instead rely on our faiths.

3. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer?

Did Hume elaborate on this part?
We have repeatedly in our labs and daily experiments witnessed how small variations/deviations could cause a visible change in the result of our experiments. Considering that everything we have observed thus far have been accurate and precise, how could an unintelligent being produce such ordered universe?

Chance? Randomness?

We can say that the process of natural selection is not random, but how about the creation of universe? is there such process like natural selection that controls the changes in the universe as well?

If not then what would be the probability of such order due to chance and randomness?

4. If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?

For order to exist, intelligence is required.
Unless we're willing to accept that the components of this universe (i.e. matter) are intelligent, we cannot rest with the idea of a self-ordered natural world.

5. Often, what appears to be purpose, where it looks like object X has feature F in order to secure some outcome O, is better explained by a filtering process: that is, object X wouldn't be around did it not possess feature F, and outcome O is only interesting to us as a human projection of goals onto nature. This mechanical explanation of teleology anticipated natural selection. (see also Anthropic principle)

The existence of X in itself is the order. The addition of F in X is the intelligent behind the existence of X.

6. The design argument does not explain pain, suffering, and natural disasters.

We are designed to feel pain and suffer in order to refine our ways.
The capacity to learn would be meaningless if pain and sufferings did not exist.
As for natural disasters, they have many purposes...
They may awake us about the temporariness of this world.
They help us not get attached to this world.
They revitalize the altruist part of our being.
Theistically, they help in expiation of sins of the believers and they are signs that help one to awaken spiritually and to polish his/her heart.

[All Business]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

The process of snowflake and crystal generation have been designed, hence the order. Everything "simple" or complex is designed.



We can claim that everything that we have observed thus far in this universe has had order and hence designed. Is this universe as a whole designed? Since we cannot answer this question empirically, we would instead rely on our faiths.



Did Human elaborate on this part?
We have repeatedly in our labs and daily experiments witnessed how small variations/deviations could cause a visible change in the result of our experiments. Considering that everything we have observed thus far have been accurate and precise, how could an unintelligent being produce such ordered universe?

Chance? Randomness?

We can say that the process of natural selection is not random, but how about the creation of universe? is there such process like natural selection controls the changes in the universe as well?

If not then what would be the probability of such order due to chance and randomness?




For order to exist, intelligence is required.
Unless we're willing to accept that the components of this universe (i.e. matter) are intelligent, we cannot rest with the idea of a self-ordered natural world.



The existence of X in itself is the order. The addition of F in X is the intelligent behind the existence of X.



We are designed to feel pain and suffer in order to refine our ways.
The capacity to learn would be meaningless if pain and sufferings did not exist.
As for natural disasters, they have many purposes...
They may awake us about the temporariness of this world.
They help us not get attached to this world.
They revitalize the altruist part of our being.
Theistically, they help in expiation of sins of the believers and they are signs that help one to awaken spiritually and to polish his/her heart.

1. What arguments are there that the process of snowflake and crystal generation are designed?

2. Yes you can claim that but a) it doesn't make it the case and b)you can't then conclude that everything is "hence" designed. The point you are overlooking is that somethings have order without being designed and so you can't take a thing with order and deduce that it was designed. You are overlooking this because you are a priori assuming that everything is designed and has order. Also, since you think that everything observed thus far has had order what would constitute disorder to you? What makes you think it is actually order, you have no basis for comparison.

If we can't answer a question empirically and must rely on faith, then believing in ID is just a matter of personal preference and proponents of it are wasting their time trying to rationally convince others to believe in it.

3. I don't see a need to reply to that part

4. Why is intelligence required for order? You continually make that assumption. And why can't matter be intelligent. You are matter. If intelligence does not consist of matter, what does it consist of?

5. Again, i see no need to reply to that

6. Why was the capacity to learn designed so as to make it meaningless without pain and suffering? Surely it could've been designed otherwise.
Pointing out "good" things to do with pain, natural disasters doesn't address the issue i.e. that these things, if they were designed, were designed by a moron and so are better explained by undirected processes.

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by All Business

1. What arguments are there that the process of snowflake and crystal generation are designed?

Theists do not base their views on empirical arguments. They have accepted the fact that our sense perception is limited, therefore, intellectualization alone isn't sufficient for seeking the truth. Their views are based on God's divine revelation and the conviction of their minds and hearts.
In God's revelations, we have learned that God has created all and controls all, even a leaf from a tree won't fall without God's knowledge of it.

2. Yes you can claim that but a) it doesn't make it the case

Neither would arguing against order of the universe would make it the case

and b)you can't then conclude that everything is "hence" designed.

I didn't mention, everything. I said everything that we have observed so far, everything that we know about the universe so far.

The point you are overlooking is that somethings have order without being designed and so you can't take a thing with order and deduce that it was designed.

There's nothing that has order without a design. Theists believe everything is designed, not just the living beings but everything, even a rock.

You are overlooking this because you are a priori assuming that everything is designed and has order.

And to deny this fact would mean you're assuming otherwise.

Also, since you think that everything observed thus far has had order what would constitute disorder to you? What makes you think it is actually order, you have no basis for comparison.

In a world created and designed by God, there's no disorder.
There are physical and metaphysical laws that determine the cause and effect of everything. We only perceive disorder to our limited knowledge of the reality, our perception doesn't indicate the ultimate truth.

For example...
Imagine a computer programmer.
He writes a program that evolves by crashing. In other words, everytime it crashes it learns a new way to cope with that certain crach-causing bug. When the computer is undergoing a crash, another observer may assume disorder and flaw, whereas the programmer is not only fully aware of the crash, he is expecting it to occur.

If we can't answer a question empirically and must rely on faith, then believing in ID is just a matter of personal preference and proponents of it are wasting their time trying to rationally convince others to believe in it.

Neither creationists nor evolutionists could ever "prove"/"disprove" anything to one another. They're walking on two parallel roads throwing rocks at each other.

4. Why is intelligence required for order? You continually make that assumption.

Could a non-computer programmer, randomly produce a precise and very functional computer program?

And why can't matter be intelligent. You are matter. If intelligence does not consist of matter, what does it consist of?

This is the key issue.
The theists do not limit themselves to matter.
They're not monists/materialists.
Rather they are ontologically dualists. They believe in the existence of material substance as well as immaterial substance. They distinguish between brain and mind.

Let us break down matter.
What is everything composed of at the lowest level? atoms? quarks? vibrations? In other words, the cells in our brain are composed of the same components as rocks. right? Do you consider a rock to be intelligent? If so, how do you define intelligence?

6. Why was the capacity to learn designed so as to make it meaningless without pain and suffering? Surely it could've been designed otherwise.

Why was the sky designed to look blue?
Or why does apple taste the way it does?
Why do ducks say quack and cows say moo?

And keep in mind, I'm not asking "how", I'm asking "why".

Pointing out "good" things to do with pain, natural disasters doesn't address the issue i.e. that these things, if they were designed, were designed by a moron and so are better explained by undirected processes.

Why? Don't you embrace pain at the gym? or when you wrestle? or box?
Why do you give pain such a negative connotation?

Sometimes the pain is worth the outcome.

[All Business]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

Theists do not base their views on empirical arguments. They have accepted the fact that our sense perception is limited, therefore, intellectualization alone isn't sufficient for seeking the truth. Their views are based on God's divine revelation and the conviction of their minds and hearts.

If that's how you feel then there is no point us discussing this rationally. It was fun while it lasted.

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by All Business

If that's how you feel then there is no point us discussing this rationally. It was fun while it lasted.

[TranceNRG]

Am I the only one who finds it ironic to use reason over Hume's argument?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H...m_and_nihilism

Most of us find some behaviors more reasonable than others. Eating aluminum foil, for example, seems to have something unreasonable about it. But Hume denied that reason has any important role in motivating or discouraging behavior. After all, reason is just a sort of calculator of concepts and experience. What ultimately matters, Hume said, is how we feel about the behavior... Reason can enter the picture only as a lackey, informing the agent of useful facts concerning which actions will serve his goals and desires, but never deigning to tell the agent which goals and desires he should have. So, if you want to eat aluminum foil, reason will tell you where to find the stuff, and there's nothing unreasonable about eating it or even wanting to do so (unless, of course, one has a stronger desire for health or the appearance of sensibility). Today, however, many commentators argue that Hume actually went a step further to nihilism and said there's nothing unreasonable about deliberately frustrating your own goals and desires ("I want to eat aluminum foil, so let me wire my mouth shut"). Such behavior would surely be highly irregular, granting reason no role at all, but it would not be contrary to reason, which is important to make judgments in this domain.

So, technically according to Hume, his own argument (whether it's reasonable or not) would have no effect on anyone.

[SYRIANKID]

1. For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose".

Circular argument.

Hume is saying that for the design argument to be true, order and purpose must be a result of design. However, he SUGGESTS that since snowflakes and crystals are spontaneous and orderly but have no purpose, therefore they are not a result of design.

A theist would say that even snowflakes and crystal formation are overseen by God. It is only the atheistic Humes that concludes that they are not designed because he can attribute no purpose to them and calls them random. To call something random is to implicitly DECIDE that God had nothing to do with it, which is circular for an atheist to step out and claim from the onset.

2. Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But in order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to why we ought to compare the world to a machine - as in Paley's watchmaker argument - when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal.

Another empty argument. When one says the Universe is designed, one is not speaking of the Universe as a single unique boundary in comparison to another such boundary. One implies that the Universe contains many finely tuned mathematical ratios and conveniences of life that are not in themselves necessary for life. The AGGREGATION of all of these things within the Universe is what is being considered.

3. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer?

It is true that a designed universe does not tell us anything about the Designer, that is why the Designer doesn’t leave His existence open to conjecture and makes revelations with divine characteristics to Prophets (pbut) whom He backs with miracles to prove beyond a shadow of the doubt that He exists and to delineate what He has commanded of those He has created.

The Designer, by definition, is not designed, he is the uncaused cause from which all causes eminate. The instigator of a finite Universe who existed always, alone, before creating anything else.

4. If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?

This assumes that the Designer is a created thing in itself, an assumption which shall not be granted. A designer need not have the attributes of the things he designs, nor be beholden to the same needs.

5. Often, what appears to be purpose, where it looks like object X has feature F in order to secure some outcome O, is better explained by a filtering process: that is, object X wouldn't be around did it not possess feature F, and outcome O is only interesting to us as a human projection of goals onto nature. This mechanical explanation of teleology anticipated natural selection. (see also Anthropic principle)

This is also a baseless argument, as not all features secure outcomes or are necessary for survival. Humans, plants, animals, and this entire Earth could in fact lack in MANY of the attributes they currently have – making life possible yet extremely painful, difficult, uncomfortable, cumbersome, and annoying. To say that taking away anything which one claims to be designed would result in non-existence, such that appreciating it is circularly based on its necessarily leading to our existence, is nothing more than a lie. Many features claimed to be designed would have zero bearing on maintaining life, but are conducive to life and make life convenient.

The argument can also be reversed against the atheist, and one could say “had God not designed you, you would not be able to exist to appreciate your designed features” The atheist reply is only “had you not evolved those features, you would not be around to say they were designed”. It’s the same argument but the atheist claims it as his own.

6. The design argument does not explain pain, suffering, and natural disasters.

That’s true, the design argument is not meant to explain the Designer’s attributes and reasoning. It is only suggested as implying a Designer. Revelation serves the purpose of explaining those things, as only the Designer can describe Himself.

[Ali_Z]

I have a question:

Regarding Hume's theory of Impressions and Ideas,

why does Hume disbelieve that there is a God when people have spoken/seen/felt to God (a posteriori)?

[Pump that iron!]

Originally Posted by Ali_Z

I have a question:

Regarding Hume's theory of Impressions and Ideas,

why does Hume disbelieve that there is a God when people have spoken/seen/felt to God?

LOL wow...hmm, I don't know, maybe because there is no evidence or proof they ACTUALLY spoken, seen or felt ANYTHING. All we have is their own WORD for it.

[Ali_Z]

Originally Posted by Pump that iron!

LOL wow...hmm, I don't know, maybe because there is no evidence or proof they ACTUALLY spoken, seen or felt ANYTHING. All we have is their own WORD for it.

There were people present during Jesus' baptism who heard the word of God. People witnessed Moses miracles. It is a fact that in the Qu'ran their are facts stated that have been validated recently. Is this not proof?

http://www.buzznet.com/tags/science/journals/63538/

http://www.quranicstudies.com/printout45.html

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/scislam.html

[Pump that iron!]

Originally Posted by Ali_Z

There were people present during Jesus' baptism who heard the word of God. People witnessed Moses miracles. It is a fact that in the Qu'ran their are facts stated that have been validated recently. Is this not proof?

Don't hijack my thread, mmkay? Thanks k, bai.

As for Hume's notion of impressions and ideas, wtf does that have to do with what you're saying? Isn't Hume basically positing that impressions have more potential to guide people's actions than ideas?

Again, don't hijack my thread. Create your own.