Table Of Content
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views for chapters in this book. To save content items to your account,please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.Find out more about saving content to Google Drive. To save content items to your account,please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
Design Arguments for the Existence of God
This organ helps organisms to survive by permitting them to perceive objects in their environment. And were the parts of the eye even slightly different in their shape and assembly, the resulting organ would not allow us to see. Cosmic design arguments begin with an observation concerning features of the entire cosmos – the universe obeys simple laws; it has a kind of stability; its physical features permit life, and intelligent life, to exist.
Fine-Tuning for Life: the Evidence
Science need not be seen as exhausting the space of legitimateconclusions from empirical data. In any case, the floods of vitriolflowing from bothsides in the current ID discussion suggest that much more than thepropriety of selected inferences from particular empirical evidencesis at issue. It is not uncommon for humans to find themselves with the intuitionthat random, unplanned, unexplained accident justcouldn’t produce the order, beauty, elegance, andseeming purpose that we experience in the natural world around us. AsHume’s interlocutor Cleanthes put it, we seem to see “theimage of mind reflected on us from innumerable objects” innature (Hume 1779 [1998], 35). And many people find themselvesconvinced that no explanation for that mind-resonance whichfails to acknowledge a causal role for intelligence, intent andpurpose in nature can be seriously plausible. Also starting already in classical Greece, two approaches to the teleological argument developed, distinguished by their understanding of whether the natural order was literally created or not.
Why Did Moses Have to First Fail Before God Freed the Jews in Egypt?
If you are for or against the principle please comment, let us know what you think of the teleological argument. The teleological or design argument is A posteriori, it uses our experience of ‘design’ in the world to argue for the existence of a designer – God. [O]ne can detect the past action of an intelligent cause from the presence of an information-rich effect, even if the cause itself cannot be directly observed. For instances, visitors to the gardens of Victoria harbor in Canada correctly infer the activity of intelligent agents when they see a pattern of red and yellow flowers spelling “Welcome to Victoria”, even if they did not see the flowers planted and arranged. Similarly, the specifically arranged nucleotide sequences—the complex but functionally specified sequences—in DNA imply the past action of an intelligent mind, even if such mental agency cannot be directly observed (Meyer 2002, 93). First, there is little reason to think that the probability of evolving irreducibly complex systems is, as a general matter, small enough to warrant assuming that the probability of the design explanation must be higher.
Teleological Arguments for God
Modern-day biologist, Richard Dawkins, following in the footsteps of Darwin, likened evolution to a blind watchmaker that creates new life forms without any need for intelligence. A classic response to the observation that the conditions in ouruniverse seem fine-tuned for life is to infer the existence of acosmic designer who created life-friendly conditions. If oneidentifies this designer with some supernatural agent or God, theinference from fine-tuning for life to the existence of a designerbecomes a version of the teleological argument. Indeed, many regardthe argument from fine-tuning for a designer as the strongest versionof the teleological argument that contemporary science affords. Many researchers believe that the fine-tuning of the universe’slaws, constants, and boundary conditions for life calls for inferringthe existence of a divine designer (see Section 3) or a multiverse—a vast collection of universes with differinglaws, constants, and boundary conditions (see Section 4). The inference to a divine designer or a multiverse typically rests onthe idea that, in view of the required fine-tuning, life-friendlyconditions are in some sense highly improbable if there isonly one, un-designed, universe.
3 Violations of Naturalness and Fine-Tuning for Life
Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. In the traditional guise of the argument from design, it is easily today's most popular argument offered in favour of the existence of God and it is seen, by an amazingly large number of theists, as completely and utterly convincing. It is indeed a very strong and, I suspect, unanswerable argument—but in precisely the opposite direction from the theist's intention. The argument from improbability, properly deployed, comes close to proving that God does not exist. My name for the statistical demonstration that God almost certainly does not exist is the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.
The Design Argument for God’s Existence - Aish
The Design Argument for God’s Existence.
Posted: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 07:00:00 GMT [source]
The consequence will be differential reproduction down the generations—in other words, natural selection (Huxley 1953, 4). Thus, Paley argues, no matter how many generations of watches beget watches (or, by obvious implication, organisms produce offspring or cells generate daughter cells), the specific, irreducible, and purposeful arrangement of watches’ inner workings can only be attributed to the action of intelligent agency. Implicit discourse relation recognition (IDRR) is to detect and classify relation sense between two text segments without an explicit connective.
Is Complexity an Argument Against Design? - Discovery Institute
Is Complexity an Argument Against Design?.
Posted: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 07:00:00 GMT [source]
In mammals, the recurrent laryngeal nerve provides a connection between the brain and the larynx, though not a direct one. Instead of taking a direct route, it passes down into the chest, circles under the aorta, and ascends back up to the neck (in giraffes, this nerve is more than 2 meters long; Harrison 1995). Similarly, the mammalian vas deferens connects the testes to the urethra, but not before passing into the pelvic cavity, looping around the urinary bladder and then descending back to complete its circuitous path. Meanwhile, the urethra itself passes directly through the prostate gland, an arrangement that readily engenders urinary difficulties if the prostate becomes swollen. It is only with great effort that arrangements such as these might be characterized as optimizations rather than as simple quirks of evolutionary historyFootnote 10 (for additional examples, see Williams 1997; Shubin 2008; Coyne 2009). By looking at the watch you would see that all the coils, springs and movements all work together so that the watch is able to keep time.
The Modern Fine-Tuning Argument
Anyone can see why the argument has some logical force and must be taken seriously. At the same time, it is properly judged to be weak due to the following objections (and others). Book summary views reflect the number of visits to the book and chapter landing pages.
The rich diversity of African thought helps us examine evil and agency from different starting points. What if, for example, the lifting of the agency (the doing of evil) was removed entirely from the supernatural? Given the philosophical role and responsibilities that follow from the assignment of “the entity that made all things,” reconciling evil and creation and God as good becomes a problem.
Having established the connection between watches and watchmakers, Paley begins his third chapter by arguing that the principle applies equally to living organisms and their components—or indeed, more so, given that their degree of adaptive complexity is vastly greater. As he might have argued, human hands more thoroughly evince design than anything crafted by them. The design argument rejects the idea that we were created by random chance or that we exist because of a Big Bang (the scientific theory that the universe began with a huge explosion about 13.7 billion years ago). If there truly existed a multiverse containing infinitely many chaotic universes, each with random laws and constants, and our one structured universe happened to have the right laws and constants which allowed it emerge from the infinite chaos, that multiverse wouldn't exhibit design. But our observed universe does exhibit design on all orders of magnitude - from the tiniest elementary particles to the largest galaxies.
Though Behe states his conclusion in categorical terms (that is, irreducibly complex systems “cannot be produced gradually”), he is more charitably construed as claiming only that the probability of gradually producing irreducibly complex systems is very small. The stronger construction of the conclusion (and argument) incorrectly presupposes that Darwinian theory implies that every precursor to a fully functional system must itself perform some function that makes the organism more fit to survive. Organisms that have, say, a precursor to a fully functional cilium are no fitter than they would have been without it, but there is nothing in Darwinian theory that implies they are necessarily any less fit. Thus, there is no reason to think that it is logically or nomologically impossible, according to Darwinian theory, for a set of organisms with a precursor to a fully functional cilium to evolve into a set of organisms that has fully functional cilia. Accordingly, the argument from irreducible biochemical complexity is more plausibly construed as showing that the design explanation for such complexity is more probable than the evolutionary explanation.
To assuage this doubt, Anselm endeavored to prove the existence of God in such an irrefutable way that even the staunchest of nonbelievers would be forced, by reason, to admit the existence of a God. But even if such conceptionswere explanatorily and scientifically superfluous at that level, thatdoes not entail that they are conceptually, alethically, inferential,or otherwise superfluous in general. The role of mind might beindirect, deeply buried, or at several levels of remove from theimmediate production mechanism but would still have to be present atsome level. In short, on the above picture Darwinian evolution willnot meet condition (e) for explaining away design, which is not itselfa shortcoming of Darwinian evolution.
Conclude that there is no sense in which life-friendlyuniverses are improbable; the probabilities are mathematicallyundefined. Intention, intervention, and other agency components of explanationscan very frequently be pushed back to prior levels—much as manydefenders of teleological arguments claim. The earlier case of thealleged poisoning of the rich uncle by the niece is a simple exampleof this. Furthermore, even within those two contexts—artifact andnature—the various Rs exhibit varying degrees ofevidential force.
For instance, even in an artifact, mere complexityof whatever degree speaks less clearly of intent than does an engravedsentence. As most critics of design arguments point out, the examplesfound in nature are not of the “engraved sentence”sort. It is only when two species of objects are found to be constantly conjoined, that we can infer the one from the other. If experience and observation and analogy be, indeed, the only guides which we can reasonably follow in inference of this nature; both the effect and cause must bear a similarity and resemblance to other effects and causes…which we have found, in many instances, to be conjoined with another. [The proponents of the argument] always suppose the universe, an effect quite singular and unparalleled, to be the proof of a Deity, a cause no less singular and unparalleled. Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of nature's physical constants, and the beginning state of the Universe.
In the eyes of manyphysicists, string theory is still the most promisingcandidate “theory of everything” in that it potentiallyoffers a unified account of all known forces of nature, includinggravity. These would be the laws and constants that we haveempirical access to, and so string theory would not come close touniquely determining the laws and constants in the manner envisaged byEinstein. Einstein’s idea is that, ultimately, the laws and constants ofphysics will turn out to be dictated completely by fundamental generalprinciples. This would make considerations about alternative laws andconstants obsolete, and thereby undermine any perspective according towhich these are fine-tuned for life.
No comments:
Post a Comment