The Argument of Design (1 Viewer)

[Alyssa]

Several years ago, i was a very convinced Theist (Bible believing Christian to be more precise) and the teleological argument is what I found the most convincing.

Design arguments are empirical arguments for the existence of God. These arguments typically, though not always, proceed by attempting to identify various empirical features of the world that constitute evidence of intelligent design and inferring God’s existence as the best explanation for these features. Since the concepts of design and purpose are closely related, design arguments are also known as “teleological arguments,” which incorporates “telos,” the Greek word for “goal” or “purpose.”

Design arguments typically consist of (1) a premise that asserts that the material universe exhibits some empirical property F; (2) a premise (or sub-argument) that asserts (or concludes) that F is persuasive evidence of intelligent design or purpose; and (3) a premise (or sub-argument) that asserts (or concludes) that the best or most probable explanation for the fact that the material universe exhibits F is that there exists an intelligent designer who intentionally brought it about that the material universe exists and exhibits F.

Essentially, I am interested in hearing why this argument is or is not a valid premise for the existence of God. There are many responses to this, but imo, Nietzsche's response emboldens my current position that essentially people worship the "God of the Gaps." Because human understanding of the universe is very limited, and our need for control and understanding is great, we adjust to these many gaps in knowledge by creating religion as an explanation for things that are not yet understood. For example, if someone from our time were to travel back thousands of years ago displaying our current knowledge and technology, they would be "worshiped" as gods. If, however, we were to travel into a potential future where our knowledge and technology has expanded, we would find that those "gaps" have been filled, and that science has explained what was at one time a mystery. Hence, "God is dead." He is no longer necessary to explain a world where understanding is lacking.

Nietzsche :

"Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves."

It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: "what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"

So with that considered, as I was studying for my A&P exam (cellular mitosis/meiosis) I came upon this interesting video which is basically an argument for intelligent design. And i found it convincing. But then I remembered that at some point (if there isn't another "Dark Ages") our comprehension of biology will be greater, and this wont seem like such a mystery. But quite frankly, this is amazing and fascinating to me.






Thoughts? Dispensations?

 

[obvious Child]

In terms of Intelligent Design, the design argument is fairly dishonest.

ID essentially assumes that things cannot function in manners that they currently do not operate in now. Meaning that a mouse trap's sole purpose is to trap Mice. That it cannot be used as a paper weight, as a bludgeoning tool, a door stop or any other use that could be obtained by a simpler device. This basically ignores how genes work. Rarely do we find a single gene responsible for a single trait. ID essentially demands that all genes are responsible for a single trait and that interactions between genes, which we know to be the cause of traits, do not exist. In an ID world, if this occurred, then primitive forms of genes could have operated in different ways to achieve many of the same necessary life functions as various genes can generate mutations but swap functions between each other. That throws a giant monkey wrench in the design argument. If similar primitive structures could have achieved similar outcomes, then the whole world view of ID goes to pot. An ID world works this way as a designer must have been in charge to set the genes to produce the necessary outcomes.

 

[Pinkie]

The existence of the Divine cannot be scientifically proven. It's a choice. For me, it fulfills a need I feel to believe in more justice than man dispenses, and it reflects the shine I see in some people. It makes me happier and more secure.

But my emotions can never be scientific proof...and what I always wonder about these arguments is, what if science COULD prove God did (or did not) exist? Isn't faith supposed to be a gift? What becomes of it, if all doubt is erased?

 

[CriticalThought]

From a purely logical standpoint, complexity does not necessarily imply design.

However, theists tend to argue that God is above human logic and perception, so that tends to make logic irrelevant to any discussion about God.

Without logic, I'm left simply with observation. From that I can determine if there is a God who designed the universe, he designed it in such a way to make himself virtually undetectable to us aside from reported subjective emotional experiences.

I can only surmise that God is very shy and built his universe with the explicit purpose of hiding from humans while using other select humans to dictate his will to the rest of us. Apparently he communicates with those select humans telepathically and we are required to accept on faith alone that what those humans say is derived directly from God. If I go so far as to accept the Biblical version of God, then I can also surmise that God commands his own creations to love him, which leads me to believe that God is highly sensitive to rejection and inadequacy.

From these observations, I would guess if there is a God, then he has a personality disorder.

 

[EagleAye]

Everything looks perfectly designed because all we can observe are the success stories. If a plant living in the Marianas Trench (where no sunlight goes), suddenly flips a few genes and must rely upon photosynthesis for it's food, it will quickly die. It will be gone long before we have the opportunity to witness the failure. Mutations that fail cannot survive to pass on their genes. Only mutations that confer an advantage survive and pass the mutation on. What we see fits so perfectly into it's environment because that biological configuration "could survive" long enough for us to witness it, not because it was intelligently designed to survive. Human beings, as we are, could never evolve on Venus, designed or otherwise. We would perish quickly and leave nothing behind for another species to witness the failure.

I believe god exists but in a much more remote manner than most religion is comfortable with. God created very simple rules, like gravity and elecro-magnetism for instance, which provided wide latitude for structures to congeal however they will. The formation of stars and planets, their location and composition, were all up for grabs and involved no planning whatsoever. Our Earth is indeed wondrous, but so are all the other fascinating planets out there. Our planet is no more fabulous than any other. We just view it that way because it's perfect for us. But we wouldn't be here to see it that way if we weren't another success story.

 

[Alyssa]

In terms of Intelligent Design, the design argument is fairly dishonest.

ID essentially assumes that things cannot function in manners that they currently do not operate in now. Meaning that a mouse trap's sole purpose is to trap Mice. That it cannot be used as a paper weight, as a bludgeoning tool, a door stop or any other use that could be obtained by a simpler device. This basically ignores how genes work. Rarely do we find a single gene responsible for a single trait. ID essentially demands that all genes are responsible for a single trait and that interactions between genes, which we know to be the cause of traits, do not exist. In an ID world, if this occurred, then primitive forms of genes could have operated in different ways to achieve many of the same necessary life functions as various genes can generate mutations but swap functions between each other. That throws a giant monkey wrench in the design argument. If similar primitive structures could have achieved similar outcomes, then the whole world view of ID goes to pot. An ID world works this way as a designer must have been in charge to set the genes to produce the necessary outcomes.

I don't think that intelligent design demands that genes only perform a single purpose.

From a purely logical standpoint, complexity does not necessarily imply design.

However, theists tend to argue that God is above human logic and perception, so that tends to make logic irrelevant to any discussion about God.

Without logic, I'm left simply with observation. From that I can determine if there is a God who designed the universe, he designed it in such a way to make himself virtually undetectable to us aside from reported subjective emotional experiences.

I can only surmise that God is very shy and built his universe with the explicit purpose of hiding from humans while using other select humans to dictate his will to the rest of us. Apparently he communicates with those select humans telepathically and we are required to accept on faith alone that what those humans say is derived directly from God. If I go so far as to accept the Biblical version of God, then I can also surmise that God commands his own creations to love him, which leads me to believe that God is highly sensitive to rejection and inadequacy.

From these observations, I would guess if there is a God, then he has a personality disorder.

lol i can't really argue against that perception. I've never cared for the idea of "faith." That is being asked to believe something with no reason or proof. And just look at all of the ways people are being manipulated for someone's personal gain. Religion, for the most part, seems more like a cancer than a cure.

 

[obvious Child]

I don't think that intelligent design demands that genes only perform a single purpose.

Well, the alternative blows a hole in its entire belief system. If genes can operate in fashions that we do not see at the moment, why couldn't they have done so in the past at a far simpler level? ID rests upon the notion that things are too complex to explain through natural processes. But if natural processes can produce many of the same outcomes just less efficiently in manners we currently do not see, ID goes down the toilet. ID essentially mandates that things cannot work at a more primitive level. That does not gel with reality. Especially our own genetic makeup.

 

[Mach]

Essentially, I am interested in hearing why this argument is or is not a valid premise for the existence of God.

The concept of God in and of itself ends up being a contradiction. Any other contrived religious assertions can't escape that.

As far as relgions go, some are slightly more in-line with being non-contracitory, like say, Buddhism.
Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice they teach the same things but in a different way.

1. Life is a struggle
2. we are not distinct from the universe, we'rell all one, or all just part of the whole, etc.
3. the universe is constantly changing

and their solution? If you are suffering as a result of your awareness of this (as many of us were or are at some point in our life), let it go. Stop struggling, accept it, because it's reality.

Now, notice the stages of acceptance of death also result in acceptance, after a struggle, a coincidence? Not really. But then you don't even need Buddhism for that, there are country people who just see life as part of nature, a cycle without apparent end, or beginning, that just is. The interesting question to me is that if you grew up with that as your understanding of reality, that it simply is, the trees are, the rabbits are, you are.....so get on with your life...would life have made more sense from the get-go? I think it would have, but I can't turn back the clock and find out.

 

[Mach]

However, theists tend to argue that God is above human logic and perception

As a quality of such a "God", that in itself makes it contradictory. You don't have to proceed past that.

If it's not logical, it's illogical. If they claim that, they admit up front that the concept of god is in fact, illogical (it is).
And regarding perception, claiming you know about something, that is in principle beyond observation (perception), is likewise, illogical. How could you know? Logically, you cannot.

It doesn't get past go, it doesn't collect $200. Of course, why would it, it's not true.

 

[Cephus]

The existence of the Divine cannot be scientifically proven. It's a choice. For me, it fulfills a need I feel to believe in more justice than man dispenses, and it reflects the shine I see in some people. It makes me happier and more secure.

But my emotions can never be scientific proof...and what I always wonder about these arguments is, what if science COULD prove God did (or did not) exist? Isn't faith supposed to be a gift? What becomes of it, if all doubt is erased?

Once again, we see that faith is entirely emotional, not intellectual. It's about what you *NEED* to feel (or at least what you've convinced yourself you need to feel), not what you can be convinced is factually true. It's no different than the guy who thinks he's Napoleon because he *NEEDS* to feel important. Regardless of what you want to feel, that's no guarantee that what you believe is actually true.

 

[Alyssa]

Well, the alternative blows a hole in its entire belief system. If genes can operate in fashions that we do not see at the moment, why couldn't they have done so in the past at a far simpler level? ID rests upon the notion that things are too complex to explain through natural processes. But if natural processes can produce many of the same outcomes just less efficiently in manners we currently do not see, ID goes down the toilet. ID essentially mandates that things cannot work at a more primitive level. That does not gel with reality. Especially our own genetic makeup.

I don't support ID but I do find nature extraordinary, and it is difficult for me to praise nature instead of a higher being.

The concept of God in and of itself ends up being a contradiction. Any other contrived religious assertions can't escape that.

As far as relgions go, some are slightly more in-line with being non-contracitory, like say, Buddhism.
Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice they teach the same things but in a different way.

1. Life is a struggle
2. we are not distinct from the universe, we'rell all one, or all just part of the whole, etc.
3. the universe is constantly changing

and their solution? If you are suffering as a result of your awareness of this (as many of us were or are at some point in our life), let it go. Stop struggling, accept it, because it's reality.

Now, notice the stages of acceptance of death also result in acceptance, after a struggle, a coincidence? Not really. But then you don't even need Buddhism for that, there are country people who just see life as part of nature, a cycle without apparent end, or beginning, that just is. The interesting question to me is that if you grew up with that as your understanding of reality, that it simply is, the trees are, the rabbits are, you are.....so get on with your life...would life have made more sense from the get-go? I think it would have, but I can't turn back the clock and find out.

Thanks for that thought. I am seeing the truth in that, and I am currently struggling with it. Insignificance, to me, is equal worthlessness. So I guess I'm currently no better than those who turn to religion for meaning. It's hard for me to except that so many things in life are beyond my control. It is easy for me to let go of my life, but what if something happens to my kids? I can't even let go of the past that easily. I admire eastern thought. I would love to apply those same concepts in my own life.

 

[sangha]

lol i can't really argue against that perception. I've never cared for the idea of "faith." That is being asked to believe something with no reason or proof. And just look at all of the ways people are being manipulated for someone's personal gain. Religion, for the most part, seems more like a cancer than a cure.

Faith is not "belief without reason". It is "belief without proof"

 

[samsmart]

I don't support ID but I do find nature extraordinary, and it is difficult for me to praise nature instead of a higher being.

Actually, I find it easier to praise nature instead of a higher being.

 

[Cephus]

Actually, I find it easier to praise nature instead of a higher being.

I don't find it necessary to praise anything, I simply accept reality as it is.

 

[samsmart]

I don't find it necessary to praise anything, I simply accept reality as it is.

Nothing wrong with that either.

 

[LiamMcGoldrick]

There is more than one type of intelligent design and it does not necessarily have to be a being but maybe the laws of physics them self are the intelligent designer and through them evolution occurred, and as for the diety that wrote the laws of physics i believe the answer lies in Agnosticism.

 

[EagleAye]

There is more than one type of intelligent design and it does not necessarily have to be a being but maybe the laws of physics them self are the intelligent designer and through them evolution occurred, and as for the diety that wrote the laws of physics i believe the answer lies in Agnosticism.

The laws of physics strike me as a few simple rules that generated a structure of fantastic beauty and complexity, the universe. It reminds me of Fractals which are very complicated structures generated by a simple algorithm.

 

[LiamMcGoldrick]

i agree but the origins are not defined by the beauty of the creations

 

[LiamMcGoldrick]

The laws of physics strike me as a few simple rules that generated a structure of fantastic beauty and complexity, the universe. It reminds me of Fractals which are very complicated structures generated by a simple algorithm.

i agree but the origins are not defined by the beauty of the creations

 

[What if...?]

Everything looks perfectly designed because all we can observe are the success stories. If a plant living in the Marianas Trench (where no sunlight goes), suddenly flips a few genes and must rely upon photosynthesis for it's food, it will quickly die. It will be gone long before we have the opportunity to witness the failure. Mutations that fail cannot survive to pass on their genes. Only mutations that confer an advantage survive and pass the mutation on. What we see fits so perfectly into it's environment because that biological configuration "could survive" long enough for us to witness it, not because it was intelligently designed to survive. Human beings, as we are, could never evolve on Venus, designed or otherwise. We would perish quickly and leave nothing behind for another species to witness the failure.

I believe god exists but in a much more remote manner than most religion is comfortable with. God created very simple rules, like gravity and elecro-magnetism for instance, which provided wide latitude for structures to congeal however they will. The formation of stars and planets, their location and composition, were all up for grabs and involved no planning whatsoever. Our Earth is indeed wondrous, but so are all the other fascinating planets out there. Our planet is no more fabulous than any other. We just view it that way because it's perfect for us. But we wouldn't be here to see it that way if we weren't another success story.

An anecdote that kind of reinforces your point comes from my time living in the high desert near Joshua Tree CA.

All over the place are Pinon pines that look artistically placed. Like they grew where they did by design.

Then there was a huge fire. And we discovered that they were all still there. Because they were growing where the fire couldn't get them, which hadn't been obvious before everything else was gone.

We are pattern recognizing creatures. And absent an explanation we tend to make things up to fit what we see.

Personally I feel the universe is a "made" thing. Who made it and why are questions we may not be supposed to know the answers to. Or may be all we're here to do.

 

[obvious Child]

I don't support ID but I do find nature extraordinary, and it is difficult for me to praise nature instead of a higher being.

Why?

10 characters.

 

[scourge99]

Several years ago, i was a very convinced Theist (Bible believing Christian to be more precise) and the teleological argument is what I found the most convincing.









Thoughts? Dispensations?

Stuff is so complicated and i don't understand how it works therefore.... it must have been designed!

Yep, its still a non-sequitur.

 

[reefedjib]

Thoughts? Dispensations?

This was beautifully done and is an amazing dance of chemistry, biology, catalysis, regulatory chemical pathways (metabolic??). The things left unsaid are what is so amazing to me. Sure the encoding of genetic info is impressive, but the mechanism which says

"We just got a crapload of glucose dumped into us! We need extra glycolysis metabolic pathways to process the chocolate ice cream sundae from Dairy Queen - STAT!"

and so proceeds to produce all of the various chemicals and catalysts for that process is awesome^4 (yes, to the fourth power.

Another amazing aspect of metabolism is how the addition if insulin in the blood stream cause the liver, the muscle and adipose tissues to ramp up glucose handling. The liver by creating and storing fat, the muscle and adipose tissues by increasing glucose energy production. See the insulin receptor, GLUT4 glucose transporter, IRS-1 signaling pathway, gycolysis pathway, mitochondria processes (Krebs cycle.electron transport chain), etc.

Metabolic pathways
glycogenesis: glucose -> glycogen
glycogenolysis: glycogen -> glucose
lipogenesis: fatty acids -> triglycerides
fatty acid synthesis: acetyl coenzyme A -> fatty acids
lipolysis: triglycerides -> glycerol, fatty acids
cholesterogenesis: acetyl coenzyme A -> cholesterol
gluconeogenesis: glucogenic amino acids, glycerol -> glucose
transamidation: amino acids -> keto acid (enters TCA cycle)
protein synthesis (translation): amino acids -> proteins
proteolysis: proteins -> amino acids
amino acid synthesis: glucose, fatty acids -> amino acids
glycolysis (aerobic): glucose -> pyruvate
glycolysis (anaerobic): glucose, ADP -> ATP
pyruvate decarboxylation (mitochondrial): pyruvate -> acetyl coenzyme A
beta oxidation (mitochondrial): fatty acids -> acetyl coenzyme A
deamination (mitochondrial): amino acids -> acetyl coenzyme A
TCA cycle, citric acid cycle, Krebs cycle (mitochondrial): acetyl coenzyme A -> NADH, succinate
ketogenesis (mitochondrial): acetyl coenzyme A -> keytones
electron transport chain (mitochondrial): NADH, ADP -> NAD+, ATP (stored energy)
electron transport chain (mitochondrial): succinate, ADP -> fumarate, ATP (stored energy)

Insulin
- Activates insulin receptor which phosphorlyses IRS-1, IRS-2, IRS-3 and other intermediaries
- Stimulates glucose uptake (GLUT4 transport – promotes glucose transporter, glucokinase)
- Stimulates amino acid uptake
- Stimulates tyrosine kinase system
-- General gene expression
-- Cell growth
-- Cell differentiation
-- Specific gene expression
-- Metabolism
--- Glycogen
---- promotes glycogenesis
---- inhibits glycogenolysis
--- Lipids
---- promotes lipogenesis
---- inhibits lipolysis
--- Proteins
---- promotes protein synthesis
---- inhibits gluconeogenesis
---- inhibits proteolysis

Hormones/Enzymes
glucagon: promotes glycogenolysis, gluconeogenesis, lipolysis, beta oxidation
growth hormone: promotes lipolysis, gluconeogenesis; inhibits glycogenesis
cortisol: promotes lipolysis, proteolysis, gluconeogenesis, glycogenolysis
epinephrine: promotes gluconeogenesis, glycogenolysis
norepinephrine: promotes lipolysis, proteolysis, gluconeogenesis, glycogenolysis
tyrosine kinase: promotes glucose transporter and glucokinase
glucose transporter: promotes glucose uptake
glucokinase: promotes glucose uptake
glucogen synthase: promotes glycogenesis
glucogen phosphorylase: promotes glycogenolysis
phosphofructokinase-1: promotes glycolysis
pyruvate dehydrogenase complex: promotes glycolysis
acetyl CoA carboxylase: promotes lipogenesis
lipoprotein lipase: promotes lipogenesis
intracellular lipase: promotes lipolysis, beta oxidation

The thing is, I believe in both creationism and evolution. I think the mechanism God used to create was the actual processes we see in nature. Of course evolution is missing the corresponding involution, or inhaling of the cosmos. YMMV.

 

[Alyssa]

Why?

10 characters.

I was a Christian for seven years of my life. Those years of belief don't just disappear if one is actually serious about it. The thing is, I constantly question everything so faith wasn't for me. But the idea of God is appealing to me. It's the idea that human beings are more than just animals. of course it's arrogant, and without reason, and yet it does appeal.

Stuff is so complicated and i don't understand how it works therefore.... it must have been designed!

Yep, its still a non-sequitur.

I agree. Which is why I gave it up. It is illogical. But still appealing.

 

[Fleshofthegods]

Perhaps we are descendents of E.T.s that mixed their DNA with the Hominids that existed at the time, and those E.T.s are what we refer to as "Gods".