Telephones Prove God's Existence

[Mudhammam]

This is an actual argument my brother made for theism:

Design and Naturalistic Belief.

The last argument that I put forth (Naturalism vs. Naturalism) attempted to argue that the idea of naturalism arising in the mind provided a rational defeater for naturalism. The thrust of this argument, which still seems right, emphasized that the naturalist is constrained to hold logically that naturalism (and then atheism) were held as a result of a physical event causing a brain event that causes the mental event and thus naturalistic belief or atheism. This being the case, the idea of naturalism likely being true for the person considering naturalism is certainly lower than .5 which then does not provide a rational justification for believing in naturalism as the chances of obtaining that belief in that way would be much lower if naturalism were true. The idea of naturalism is sufficient to provide a rational defeater for naturalistic belief. I was thinking about naturalism and determinism and the sorts of absurdities that we find ourselves in if we are to take this position through to various conclusions. Here, I want to apply it to teleology. An atheist will want to argue that there exist no design in the universe. The universe is not designed for anything. Organisms only appear to be designed but in reality can be explained, or will be explained, as a result of laws, energy, and physical processes. If we are serious naturalists and apply determinism (or even apply uncertainty) to the laws, energy, and physical processes, we also must hold that all committed actions result of prior physical events as well. Consequently, this article, your ability to read it, and long before this, our computers, us bringing them home from the computer store, the computer store itself, the truck delivering the computers, the factory where they are made, and the blueprint and the "designers" of the the blueprints, who only appear to be designed, are entirely the result of physical processes. Simply put, if organisms are not designed, then St. Peter's Basilica, the Taj Mahal, and every event from a Beethoven symphony to Einstein's theory of General Relativity were developed precisely the same way that they think organisms were made: through physical processes alone. Consequently, for the naturalist, nothing is designed or at least not in a sense that is distinguishable from a bomb exploding an asteroid breaking through the atmosphere or a stone rolling down a hill. All events are the result of physical events. When a naturalists holds that an organism is not really designed but that their vehicle or telephone was, are they not talking nonsense and showing what they really understand to be the sort of universe that we live in? It is all or nothing. If organisms are not designed than neither was the Empire State Building. If anything is designed including a telephone, naturalism then is false. Or I think, that if anything is designed including a telephone, God exists.

[max-greece]

Very difficult to follow but, if I understood your point the answer is:

B. No.

[Esquilax]

That is a deeply stupid argument, for the simple reason that it fails to take into account the possibility that natural causes might give rise to intelligent beings capable of design. This is simply demonstrably true.

Yes, I suppose at some level all the things humanity has designed have come about via natural processes insofar as human beings and the things they think about are themselves natural, but this is more a word game than an actual argument, using one definition of the term "design" with regards to god creating organisms, and substituting another one when discussing humans doing the same sans god. Your brother is attempting to play with a loaded deck, Shonuff, and I suggest you don't let him get away with it.

Ask him to stick with a single definition of design, and hold it consistently; if he goes with the version of design that entails intelligent agents creating things that cannot arise on their own- the definition he wants to apply to god- then humans doing so is a trivial observation. If he wishes to stick with the nonsensical definition of design wherein things of natural origin can never design things as they're stuck obeying the naturalistic processes within them, then he suddenly runs into several problems, not the least of which is that he's failed to define this magic free will system that god apparently has in such a way that it can be differentiated from naturalistic human experience. Moreover, if he's intent on attributing every instance of design to the ultimate origin of its designer, then there is no design in anything ever, beyond the supernatural designer he wishes there was, but has not demonstrated. And even that designer could receive no credit, since its design of humans would have been the result of impulses within its brain or soul or mind or what have you.

Honestly, there's a lot wrong with this argument, but that should be enough to shut him up, for now.

[Mudhammam]

I simply responded with:
"To answer your question, no. They are not talking nonsense. But arguing that the existence of a telephone proves God's existence is. The difference between man-made design and natural design is that one is forethought and planned with a specific purpose in mind, usually by many designers who have particular roles, whereas biological organisms modify their designs by competing for resources and reproducing--which is their "purpose"--a process that requires no intelligence."

Given how our last debate over atheism and Christianity went though, I'm not so sure he will even think it worth his time to take the bait (I wouldn't think so either if he wasn't my brother and I wasn't genuinely concerned for his mental well-being).

[Alex K]

How does he get the p < 0.5?

Also, it doesn't seem to be deterministic because of quantum inteterminacy.

[FreeTony]

If I am reading this right, the essense of his argument is this : If physical laws determine everything, then 1 set of starting conditions will determine everything that happens in the future.

Even without going into determinism, you'd have to demonstrate that God exists and sets those starting conditons. It would also throws in problems with free will. If his argument is true, then you yourself cannot help being an Atheist as God has determined that you will be at the start of the universe.

[Mudhammam]

Well, my brother finally did get back to me, and Esquilax, you were right, it did shut him up. He still doesn't quite see how we can distinguish "between design (as opposed to apparent design [in nature]) in both watches and dogs for example," and insists that it "seems to follow necessarily that design is actual or illusory in artificial and organic objects." Beyond that his only response was: "It seems to me that if you can't, you have to hold that either the Taj Mahal is the result of natural processes alone (design is illusory) or that the Taj Mahal is designed (non-illusory) in which case, we need at least a Prime Designer or a rejection of determinism in human agency (which is inconsistent with naturalism. You could just bite the bullet though a hold that the One World Trade Center for example is just apparently designed. I am not seeing any other options here... Thank you for hearing me out though. Do you mind if I send this over to Aaron to get his thoughts on the matter?"

By the way, Aaron is his theist friend with I believe a Ph.D in philosophy. I think we done well. Thanks a lot!

That is a deeply stupid argument, for the simple reason that it fails to take into account the possibility that natural causes might give rise to intelligent beings capable of design. This is simply demonstrably true.

Yes, I suppose at some level all the things humanity has designed have come about via natural processes insofar as human beings and the things they think about are themselves natural, but this is more a word game than an actual argument, using one definition of the term "design" with regards to god creating organisms, and substituting another one when discussing humans doing the same sans god. Your brother is attempting to play with a loaded deck, Shonuff, and I suggest you don't let him get away with it.

Ask him to stick with a single definition of design, and hold it consistently; if he goes with the version of design that entails intelligent agents creating things that cannot arise on their own- the definition he wants to apply to god- then humans doing so is a trivial observation. If he wishes to stick with the nonsensical definition of design wherein things of natural origin can never design things as they're stuck obeying the naturalistic processes within them, then he suddenly runs into several problems, not the least of which is that he's failed to define this magic free will system that god apparently has in such a way that it can be differentiated from naturalistic human experience. Moreover, if he's intent on attributing every instance of design to the ultimate origin of its designer, then there is no design in anything ever, beyond the supernatural designer he wishes there was, but has not demonstrated. And even that designer could receive no credit, since its design of humans would have been the result of impulses within its brain or soul or mind or what have you.

Honestly, there's a lot wrong with this argument, but that should be enough to shut him up, for now.

[Esquilax]

Well, my brother finally did get back to me, and Esquilax, you were right, it did shut him up.

Nice. I know you probably don't need the help, but I'mma stretch my rebutting legs anyway.

He still doesn't quite see how we can distinguish "between design (as opposed to apparent design [in nature]) in both watches and dogs for example," and insists that it "seems to follow necessarily that design is actual or illusory in artificial and organic objects."

It's really down to how we actually identify design in the first place. Guy's getting really close to the Watchmaker Argument here, so if you asked him how he thinks we identify design, I wouldn't be too surprised if he answers that it's an intuitive process. But that's not really an answer at all, that's just coming to a conclusion in his head without being able to verbalize the methodology behind it; at the very least he's begging the question, since he's seeing design in natural things without being able to justify it.

Perhaps he'll mention complexity, but that doesn't work as there's complex natural things, and putting them under that umbrella just because they're complex is begging the question too. Actually, we recognize design via contrast with natural things; watches have no natural means of replication and we've only ever seen them being designed and built, whereas dogs have natural replication built right in, and we've never seen one being constructed outside of that process.

A cool thought experiment is to imagine being dropped onto an alien planet that seems completely deserted, and finding a fully functioning watch on the ground. Without any means of contrast or any evidence of a designer around, how could you be justified in assuming that there was a designer for it? Would you do so just because it looks reminiscent of something designed you've seen on Earth? Say you pick it up, and over the course of a day you watch a sequence of natural weather patterns and environmental factors cause a duplicate watch to slowly form naturally in a freak conflux of conditions; now you have a completely natural watch to go along with your designed one. Can you be safe in any of your assumptions about design without evidence to justify them, now?

Beyond that his only response was: "It seems to me that if you can't, you have to hold that either the Taj Mahal is the result of natural processes alone (design is illusory)

In a sense, it was naturally constructed, but he's still holding to dual definitions of design to make his dilemma.

or that the Taj Mahal is designed (non-illusory) in which case, we need at least a Prime Designer or a rejection of determinism in human agency (which is inconsistent with naturalism. You could just bite the bullet though a hold that the One World Trade Center for example is just apparently designed. I am not seeing any other options here...

The other option is that determinism is near meaningless from an individual human perspective, since it doesn't alter the way we perceive our free will; we might only be doing things in accordance with deterministic, natural processes, but it doesn't feel that way to us. Our biochemistry informs our perceptions but that's not the way it feels to us; there's no meaningful distinction between our actual experiences, and free will.

Besides, the only way that it really matters is if your brother can establish what "real" free will would entail, and what distinguishes it from what we have here. He's not bothering to do that.

Finally, I'd bring up termite mounds and beaver dams. Termites and beavers are natural and only working in accordance with instincts, and yet your brother can probably see the design involved with the homes they- and any other animal, for that matter- construct for themselves. Plonk him down in front of a termite mound, with termites coming out of it, and evidence that constructing these things is what they do, and he'll recognize the design despite the fact that the termites are only obeying their deterministic instincts, far more than humans ever would.

There's a difference between "being natural," and "being purposeless and random."

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It seems clear that your brother hasn't read Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, which puzzles me. The book has been available for nearly 30 years, and pretty effectively refutes the argument from design. The argument was fatally flawed when Paley made it a half century before Darwin published, and it hasn't gotten better with age.

This strikes me as simply one more example of theists thinking they have refuted atheism without having done the requisite research.

Boru

[Mudhammam]

Esquilax, I'll probably borrow a lot of that so I do appreciate your additional insights--not only because it saves me the time and effort of articulating it in my own words but also because I would have likely forgotton to mention some key points. I found your last post, which I drew from heavily, particularly damning to his argument, primarily because of how concise and easily conveyable your choice of words were. Sometimes I think I lack that communicative skill. Also, I don't quite understand how theists insist that there must be an Undesigned Designer...and yet this cannot apply to people! Indeed, that's exactly what WE are!