I contend that the design argument is invalid as an argument regarding the existence of a divine entity.
Why?
A. The idea of a design requires a purpose for that design that exists apart from the design itself. Since that statement is illogical without assuming the existence of God(gods), we have a clear case of logical fallacy.
B. Theories such as many-worlds hypothesis, M-theory etc can account for the probability statements.
C. Evolution shows that despite being driven by random processes, complexity can arise without a designer. Other processes also reflect that.
D. The universe is not perfect. We are not special. For each case we argue of apparent design, we can argue a similar case of poor design.

Responses?

quote:

---

C. Evolution shows that despite being driven by random processes, complexity can arise without a designer. Other processes also reflect that.

---

At least so it would seem. And yet why are we, the most highly evolved creatures of such a process (design), so adept at designing things?

quote:

---

D. The universe is not perfect. We are not special. For each case we argue of apparent design, we can argue a similar case of poor design.

---

How is it possible to define something as special if there wasn't something "unspecial" set in contrast to it? How would you differentiate? You can't have bad if everything was good. You can't have ugly if everything was beauty. So it would seem you can't have one without the other (which is not altogether different from what you're saying).

Therefore, the same criteria could also apply to acknowledging a Creator. For how can there be a God (good), if he were not set in contrast to a Devil? (evil).

quote:

---

At least so it would seem. And yet why are we, the most highly evolved creatures of such a process (design), so adept at designing things?

---

quote:

---

How is it possible to define something as special if there wasn't something "unspecial" set in contrast to it? How would you differentiate? You can't have bad if everything was good. You can't have ugly if everything was beauty. So it would seem you can't have one without the other (which is not altogether different from what you're saying).

Therefore, the same criteria could also apply to acknowledging a Creator. For how can there be a God (good), if he were not set in contrast to a Devil? (evil).

---

quote:

---

The universe is not perfect.

---

quote:

---

But this argument leads nowhere. God usually involves the assumption of A. Being omnipotent and B being good. These are inconsistent with a plainly imperfect universe.

---

So what's your definition fo perfect? God created the universe to suit our needs. I don't know about you, but that's perfect enough for me.

quote:

---

C. Evolution shows that despite being driven by random processes, complexity can arise without a designer. Other processes also reflect that.

---

maybe so, but evolution is not yet a fact. There are still many things that evolution does not explain.

quote:

---

We are not special

---

For being the only intelligent life in the universe, I'd say we're somewhat special. Unless aliens exist.

quote:

---

So what's your definition fo perfect? God created the universe to suit our needs. I don't know about you, but that's perfect enough for me.

---

quote:

---

maybe so, but evolution is not yet a fact. There are still many things that evolution does not explain.

---

quote:

---

For being the only intelligent life in the universe, I'd say we're somewhat special. Unless aliens exist.

---

quote:

---

In my opinion, intelligence is clearly an relative concept that we cannot justify in absolute terms. The intelligence of man is different from that of, say a computer, but is it neccessarily superior. Man is unique, but that does not extend to special. Everything is unique.

---

But we have conciousness. The ability to think outside the box. Only human beings have this, whether you consider it special or not.

quote:

---

maybe so, but evolution is not yet a fact. There are still many things that evolution does not explain

---

Its not a fact like, 1+1=2 type fact. However, it is the collection of research and data over quite sometime I imagine that is the best solution to the question at this point in time. Unlikely will it ever be completly disproven, but certainly there will be changes/adaptations made to compensate for things not known at the time. It is a Living Idea so to speak.

quote:

---

But we have conciousness. The ability to think outside the box. Only human beings have this, whether you consider it special or not.

---

I've raised animals all my life. Cats, dogs, fish, rabbits, ferrits, rodents, and birds. I was mostly involved with cats and dogs. As best as I can tell, animals have feelings. They have, as you call it conciousness very similar to my own. They remember things and use alot of association. Such as, while training a pup, you spank it and say no. Soon, the dog learns that No means he is doing or about to do something wrong. I will certainly argue the point that humans are not the only beings with consiousness. Animals certainly understand love, probably to a degree beyond humans. Seems I remember how apes and such behave almost identical to us culturally. I also argue that animals do know about death, although I've heard many say they are not aware of death.

Infact, I'd have to say that to discredit evolution or to say humans are the only conciuos beings merely on grounds supported by the bible is absoulutly rediculous. If you wish to use a piece of text to support your views, then that piece of text need be verifiable and accurate. The sources need to be known.

What I'm saying is you would not make it very far in a debate if all of your evidence came from a book entitled "Megashawns book of answers", and nobody knew who the heck megashawn was, nor where/when he lived, where his information came from, and how accurate it was.

I'm still not certain there is not some kind of being or intelligence behind it all, but I would not be so quick to label it "God" and start worshipping it.

Maybe the apparent design we see is merely nature at work. Seems to me like evolution plays more of a role in things then just life.

I'd think in order for a computer to be concious on a human level, it would probably require quantum technology. Seems our brain processes things much like a quantum computer can/will.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FZ:
A. The idea of a design requires a purpose for that design that exists apart from the design itself. Since that statement is illogical without assuming the existence of God(gods), we have a clear case of logical fallacy.

---

The problem here is that you are creating a logical fallacy out of nothing. You have come up with a statement that refers to the purpose of design and the statement naturally assumes the existence of God. You then say the statement is illogical unless one assumes that God exists which of course is true. And that is all you have proven with this paragraph. That it is possible to make a statement based on the assumption of a certain fact and the statement is illogical unless the fact is assumed. But so what?

quote:

---

Originally posted by FZ:
B. Theories such as many-worlds hypothesis, M-theory etc can account for the probability statements.

---

I'm afraid that I don't understand what this means. Perhaps if you explain it to me I will be able to respond.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FZ:
C. Evolution shows that despite being driven by random processes, complexity can arise without a designer. Other processes also reflect that.

---

Hmmm. Evolution shows... Isn't that statement illogical without assuming that God does not exist? Sounds like a clear case of logical fallacy to me.

Complexity can arise without a designer. Well that may be so. If I throw a pack of cards up in the air they will come down and make a very complex mess. But they will never fall down randomly and form a perfectly balanced house of cards.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FZ:
D. The universe is not perfect. We are not special. For each case we argue of apparent design, we can argue a similar case of poor design.

---

Why do you say the universe is not perfect? What would you change? Tell us all the flaws. If you can come up with a better design I would be most interested in hearing about it.

Why do you say we are not special? Everyone is unique. Even twins are different. In my experience people generally like to think they are special. How about your loved ones. Aren't they special?

Certainly humans are not perfect. But is it due to poor design? Whether you believe in creation or evolution the human body is a masterpiece of engineering. The problem here is that you assume the reason why humans are not perfect is because of poor design. There may be another reason. Are all car accidents caused because of poor design by the manufacturer?

Laser Eyes

quote:

---

The problem here is that you are creating a logical fallacy out of nothing. You have come up with a statement that refers to the purpose of design and the statement naturally assumes the existence of God. You then say the statement is illogical unless one assumes that God exists which of course is true. And that is all you have proven with this paragraph. That it is possible to make a statement based on the assumption of a certain fact and the statement is illogical unless the fact is assumed. But so what?

---

quote:

---

Hmmm. Evolution shows... Isn't that statement illogical without assuming that God does not exist? Sounds like a clear case of logical fallacy to me.

Complexity can arise without a designer. Well that may be so. If I throw a pack of cards up in the air they will come down and make a very complex mess. But they will never fall down randomly and form a perfectly balanced house of cards.

---

quote:

---

Why do you say the universe is not perfect? What would you change? Tell us all the flaws. If you can come up with a better design I would be most interested in hearing about it.

---

quote:

---

Why do you say we are not special? Everyone is unique. Even twins are different. In my experience people generally like to think they are special. How about your loved ones. Aren't they special?

---

quote:

---

Are all car accidents caused because of poor design by the manufacturer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iacchus32:

How is it possible to define something as special if there wasn't something "unspecial" set in contrast to it? How would you differentiate? You can't have bad if everything was good. You can't have ugly if everything was beauty. So it would seem you can't have one without the other (which is not altogether different from what you're saying).

Therefore, the same criteria could also apply to acknowledging a Creator. For how can there be a God (good), if he were not set in contrast to a Devil? (evil).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FZ:

But this argument leads nowhere. God usually involves the assumption of A. Being omnipotent and B being good. These are inconsistent with a plainly imperfect universe. To generate flaws on purpose is as consistent with non-design as it is with design. It is to proclaim a God who mimics his own non-existence, not a very helpful concept.

---

If we were all born perfect we wouldn't need to be here. Without imperfection there would be no need to learn. There would be nothing to evaluate. Perhaps good, like wisdom, is something which is acquired? Doesn't that make sense? Hence the possibility remains consistent with that of a "Good Creator."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iacchus32:
If we were all born perfect we wouldn't need to be here. Without imperfection there would be no need to learn. There would be nothing to evaluate. Perhaps good, like wisdom, is something which is acquired? Doesn't that make sense? Hence the possibility remains consistent with that of a "Good Creator."

---

What makes u think we 'need' to be here at all?

perfect or not.

quote:

---

What makes u think we 'need' to be here at all?

perfect or not.

---

Why do birds fly south during the winter? What's your point?

My point is, that u sound like u are assuming that we 'need' to be here, and this is shown through our imperfection or something. I just doubt we need to be here at all.

But then, I'm also an Atheist, so of course I would think that.

Therefore without perfection and the absence thereof, there would be no means by which to acknowledge perfection, and no means by which to improve upon it (strive towards it).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iacchus32:
How is it possible to define something as special if there wasn't something "unspecial" set in contrast to it? How would you differentiate? You can't have bad if everything was good. You can't have ugly if everything was beauty. So it would seem you can't have one without the other (which is not altogether different from what you're saying).
Therefore, the same criteria could also apply to acknowledging a Creator. For how can there be a God (good), if he were not set in contrast to a Devil? (evil).

The Advent of Dionysus - Online Book

---

Whereas I for one have no problem acknowledging evolution as this process, at least in terms of the natural world. As for mankind, things get a little more complicated.

But, if you look at it in terms of someone (i.e., Adam) who is born into a position of great wealth (being the son of God and all), who has no appreciation whatsoever for what it took to amass such a fortune (for not having gone through the ranks and all), then, when put in a position of responsiblilty, he's going to fail, and miserably. And this I think is what happened to Adam, he fell for not having a substantial or "working idea" of God.

It would very much like the wealthy Father telling his son, "Okay, I'm not giving you my money, I expect you to go out into the real world and work, that you might learn the value of things and develop character." In other words go out and find something useful to do. Which is pretty much what God says to Adam: "I comand you to work by the sweat of your brow."

quote:

---

(for not having gone through the ranks and all),

---

And at what point did god have to "go through the ranks"? Where did he learn his ethics?