A Working Draft Design Argument

[Pat Mustard]

P1- Intentionality gives things value and meaning. Novels possess intrinsic values and meaning, as a result of being authored, designed, endowed by their authors to posses such elements.

P2-If reality possess value and meaning, we can use logic to infer a cause, from an effect. I.E. That which possess values and meaning, indicate intentionality, authorship, design, etc..

P3-Determinism is true. To ask for proof of determinism, implies it’s true. The question itself requires determinism to be true, preceding factors to reach x conclusion, the conclusion is drawn from previously existing causes.

P4-All preceding factors, have preceding factors of their own, until one reaches a point which posses no preceding factors, i.e a first cause, or a type of  uncaused singularity, that’s the ultimate determining cause of all causes, all knowledge, all past and future, events, all values and meanings, etc..

P5- Since reality possess values and meanings, that are ultimately rooted in the first cause, reality is an intentional work, authored designed, a novel.

If I were trying to get to "evidence for design" I wouldn't be starting from here.

To expand a bit further, here are a few issues:

1) Acrobat's premises consist largely of assertions. That's ok if you're doing a thought experiment to see what's needed to prove a conjecture, but they do nothing to actually prove it.

2) His conclusions simply do not flow from his premises, again they are assertions. For example he simply asserts determinism is true for nothing more than the simple fact we have a word for it. Truth does not work that way. Actually, IMO proving the universe is deterministic is actually harmful to the god hypothesis, not helpful.

3) The first cause hypothesis falls on the first hurdle in and of itself, vis what makes god the first cause? If god exists then he's part of everything, and if he's part of everything then he too must be a created thing.

4) Value is subjective, a lump of anthracite was far more valuable in 19th century England than in 5th century CE Yucutan, simply because 200 years ago people knew a lot more about coal, what they could do with it and so on than 2,500 years ago. And it has since lost some of that value, because we know a lot more of the problems with using it.

Finally an observation, this all looks very similar in premise to William Paley's watchmaker argument, something that's been debunked for years.