The Argument by Design and the Logic Train

Art48

The argument by design briefly is that the universe is like a machine; machines have intelligent designers; like effects have like causes; therefore, the universe as a whole has an intelligent designer, which is God.

The world, say proponents, is obviously designed because it coming about by blind chance is about as likely as a tornado in a junk yard creating a car.

The argument by design is flawed because it gets on the “logic train” but then jumps off before the train has reached its logical destination. It wants to prove God so stops when the argument has reached a Creator.

If we stayed on the logic train, the next observation is that not only the universe in total, but also things in the universe—like heart disease, Covid, hurricanes and tornado that kill, malaria, earthquakes, babies dying of cancer, etc., etc., etc.—must also have been designed.

So, the argument by design taken to its logical conclusion proves not only that a creator exists but that the creator is evil, malevolent, willing to see babies suffer from cancer and die.

Note: I don’t believe the argument by design is valid so I don’t believe in an evil Creator. But if someone does an argument by design, then the logical conclusion of their argument is an evil God. Only by prematurely jumping off the logic train can they avoid that conclusion.

javra

↪Art48

Conclusion: The cosmos is not like a machine but like an uncreated being. Of course, this would welcome in concepts of pantheism and panentheism as God. Is the cosmos evil? “In part; in part not,” seems to be the most appropriate answer.

Or can one have a machine devoid of design?

Jackson

Conclusion: The cosmos is not like a machine but like an uncreated being. Of course, this would welcome in concepts of pantheism and panentheism as God. Is the cosmos evil? “In part; in part not,” seems to be the most appropriate answer. — javra

Good, I agree. Leibniz was to the first of think of the entire universe as a computer. Feeding off itself.

javra

↪Jackson

Cheers, mate.

Leibniz was to the first of think of the entire universe as a computer. Feeding off itself. — Jackson

Interesting: can a computer that feeds off itself - reminiscent to me of the Ouroboros symbol's significance - not be conceived of as organic? And, if organic, to what extent can it be conceived of as a computer?

... trying to work through some semantics.

Jackson

nteresting: ca — javra

Interesting: can a computer that feeds off itself - reminiscent to me of the Ouroboros symbol's significance - not be conceived of as organic? And, if organic, to what extent can it be conceived of as a computer?

... trying to work through some semantics. — javra

Computer processes things. If the universe is a process then where do its inputs come from. A difference machine which has randomness in it.

javra

Computer processes things. If the universe is a process then where do its inputs come from. A difference machine which has randomness in it. — Jackson

(I should have articulated "an uncreated cosmic computer that feeds off itself" rather than simply say "computer ..."; it's what I intended at any rate.)

So, if the universe is an uncreated cosmic computer with randomness as inputs for its processes, would it then be properly conceived of as alive/animate/organic, dead, inanimate and perfectly fixed (as per the block cosmos), or something other? Can't figure out what the other could be in this scenario.

Jackson

would it then be properly conceived of as alive/animate/organic, dead, inanimate and perfectly fixed (as per the block cosmos) — javra

Alive in the sense of being a creative process. Where intelligence is natural and artificial.

javra

↪Jackson

Hey, I agree with you. I'll be reading to see if others see it differently.

Jackson

Hey, I agree with you. I'll be reading to see if others see it differently. — javra

Good times.

180 Proof

So, the argument by design taken to its logical conclusion proves not only that a creator exists but that the creator is evil, malevolent, willing to see babies suffer from cancer and die. — Art48

:up: aka the argument from poor design ... from which I conclude

↪180 Proof

.

And in my more speculative moods ...
(this) A cold undead universe ...
:fire: ... this pandeist fairytale (that)

Tom Storm

So, the argument by design taken to its logical conclusion proves not only that a creator exists but that the creator is evil, malevolent, willing to see babies suffer from cancer and die. — Art48

In atheist circles, the old joke use to be that if God was a manufacture of cars he would have his ass sued off and business closed down for culpably negligent manufacture. Also, imagine thinking up and building a world where most living creatures hunt and kill other living creatures to live. Why build suffering and torment into lifeforms when you could do it any way you wanted? Darwin's faith was rocked when he learned of how insects (especially a variety of wasp laying eggs in a living caterpillar) eat each other alive as part of their breeding process.

Jackson

Also, imagine thinking up and building a world where all the living creatures hunt and kill other living creatures to live. Why build suffering and torment into all lifeforms when you could do it any way you wanted. — Tom Storm

If God is powerful and could prevent suffering then he is cruel.
If God is not powerful and cannot prevent suffering then he is impotent.

Tom Storm

If God is powerful and could prevent suffering then he is cruel.
If God is not powerful and cannot prevent suffering then he is impotent. — Jackson

and perhaps

If God didn't exist, the flawed world we encounter is exactly what you might imagine.

Of course there are models of god or cosmic consciousness/great mind where none of this matters.

ASmallTalentForWar

Philosophies like Hinduism and Buddhism take a more internal approach to examine the idea of suffering. In other words, from God's point of view there is no suffering. Events occur as they should based on the rules of reality that whatever prime mover put into place, and suffering is just the opinion of whomever may be caught up in that temporary arrangement of events.

A person may suffer disease, poverty, injury, despair or any number of subjectively negative experiences, but what makes all that "suffering?" The answer may be that suffering is the response chosen by the sufferer. Through great pain or grief, the person could accept at any moment that this is perfectly natural and right and stop punishing themselves for it as it won't last forever. It will change at some point, so why bother spending your time suffering?

180 Proof

If God didn't exist, the flawed world we encounter is exactly what you might imagine. — Tom Storm

:up:

Paulm12

↪Art48

If we stayed on the logic train, the next observation is that not only the universe in total, but also things in the universe—like heart disease, Covid, hurricanes and tornado that kill, malaria, earthquakes, babies dying of cancer, etc., etc., etc.—must also have been designed.

I think you are misrepresenting the design argument. The design argument simply states that the universe seems to be governed by simple consistent laws and rules, with the idea often saying "God" is the universal "law giver" or in some cases "law upholder." For instance, consider how the effective mathematics is at predicting the natural world. For many, there is an elegance to this that doesn't seem random or uncreated/undesigned at all.

the creator is evil, malevolent, willing to see babies suffer from cancer and die.
Here you are assuming this creator has a will, and must somehow care particularly about human affairs and have a desire to change things. These are assumptions that are not necessary or central to the design argument.

Art48

"I think you are misrepresenting the design argument."

The OP clearly states what I mean by the design argument.
The argument by design briefly is that the universe is like a machine; machines have intelligent designers; like effects have like causes; therefore, the universe as a whole has an intelligent designer, which is God.

No one owns a copyright on "design argument" so if you decide that phrase means something else, fine.

Jackson

The OP clearly states what I mean by the design argument.
The argument by design briefly is that the universe is like a machine; machines have intelligent designers; like effects have like causes; therefore, the universe as a whole has an intelligent designer, which is God.

No one owns a copyright on "design argument" so if you decide that phrase means something else, fine. — Art48

The problem of infinite regress. If you use the logic of design then the question is who designed the designer.

The Argument by Design and the Logic Train

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions