Response to Watchmaker Argument

Christians often tell me that they can "just tell" when something is designed, and they can "just tell" that certain things, like the eyeball, are designed. Therefore there must have been a designer for there to have been something that was designed.

I am wondering if there's anything that was not designed.

If there is something that was not designed, then God didn't make it, and we need to figure out where it came from.

If there is nothing that was not designed, then there's no way to tell if something's designed or not, because there's nothing to show what a non-designed object would be like for contrast.

Therefore, the Argument From Design or whatever it's properly called fails.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Christians often tell me that they can "just tell" when something is designed, and they can "just tell" that certain things, like the eyeball, are designed. Therefore there must have been a designer for there to have been something that was designed.

I am wondering if there's anything that was not designed.

If there is something that was ntrast.

Therefore, the Argument From Design or whatever it's properly called fails.

The theist could respond that there are some things in the world such that their organization was not guided by God, but the materials the constitute them were created by God. These things would, I guess, be suitably called 'indirect creations', and need not bear the putative hallmarks of design.

Originally posted by bbarr
The theist could respond that there are some things in the world such that their organization was not guided by God, but the materials the constitute them were created by God. These things would, I guess, be suitably called 'indirect creations', and need not bear the putative hallmarks of design.

I'm not sure what sort of situation you're describing. If humans, aliens, the devil or angels designed something it's still designed. If a pile of rocks falls into a certain configuration based on the laws of physics, well God made those laws, knew their consquences, can see the future ets, so he basically designed the pile of rocks in it's new configuration.

The only way I can grok what you're saying is if I assume some other being besides God designed something, but if so, it's still designed.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I'm not sure what sort of situation you're describing. If humans, aliens, the devil or angels designed something it's still designed. If a pile of rocks falls into a certain configuration based on the laws of physics, well God made those laws, knew their consquences, can see the future ets, so he basically designed the pile of rocks in it's new conf I assume some other being besides God designed something, but if so, it's still designed.

Seeing that some configuration of rocks will result from a set of laws and established background conditions is not the same as intending the configuration and bringing such a configuration about. Even if God could have intervened, but allowed the configuration to occur, this does not entail that God intended that particular configuration and, hence, it does not entail that that configuration was designed (in any sense of the term important for this argument). Look, if I place my kitten and a roll of toilet paper together in an empty room, there will shortly be a very complex configuration of shredded paper. Suppose I know this, I put the kitten the and toilet paper in the room, etc. Even so, I did not in any sense design the resulting configuration of shredded paper. Intending or designing the causal antecedents of some object or event does not entail intending or designing the object or event itself.

EDIT: Props for using 'grok'.

Originally posted by bbarr
Seeing that some configuration of rocks will result from a set of laws and established background conditions is not the same as intending the configuration and bringing such a configuration about. Even if God could have intervened, but allowed the configuration to occur, this does not entail that God intended that particular configuration and, hence, it does ...[text shortened]... ot entail intending or designing the object or event itself.

EDIT: Props for using 'grok'.

You didn't design the shredded paper because there was an unknown in the equation; there are chaotic effects (which as far as I know means "too complicated for humans to model mathematically" though I could be wrong) and a kitten whose exact behavior cannot be predicted.

If you're omniscient, such that you know exactly how chaotic effects will affect the paper roll, and you know how the kitten will act - then I think you did design the shredded paper structure.

In any case, by putting the kitten and paper in the room, knowing the kitten likes to shred paper, you did in fact design a shredded-paper manufacturing device of sorts. You just didn't design the exact shredding pattern due to human limitations. Similarly people have designed egg-making structures in the form of chicken sweatshops, though they did not design the order that the hens would lay eggs.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You didn't design the shredded paper because there was an unknown in the equation; there are chaotic effects (which as far as I know means "too complicated for humans to model mathematically" though I could be wrong) and a kitten whose exact behavior cannot be predicted.

If you're omniscient, such that you know exactly how chaotic effects will affe ...[text shortened]... ice of sorts. You just didn't design the exact shredding pattern due to human limitations.

Yes, I designed the paper-shredding complex, just as people design egg-production complexes and God designed the universe. But I did not design the configuration of the shredded paper, just as people do not design the precise order of the eggs, and as God does not design everything the follows from the laws of the universe and its boundary conditions. Now, you can simply assert that since God knows what will follow from the laws and boundary conditions, that he does design everything that is. But this is not the sense of 'design' that the theist is interested in with regards to the argument from design. If you are wedded to this construal of 'design', I guess the theist will simply distinguish between direct and indirect design, and then claim that the argument refers to instances of direct design where it is putatively clear that these have been intentionally constructed or modeled or whatever. Or, rather, the theist could reject your notion of design because it conflates foreknowledge with intention. If I know about P, and do not attempt to prevent that P, it does not follow that I intend that P, nor that I have designed P (where P is some event). I know now that my kitten will eventually fall asleep in the windowsill. I know that I could prevent this by constructing a barrier to the windowsill. I do not construct the barrier. This does not entail that I intend or have designed the forthcoming event of my kitten falling asleep in the windowsill. If, counterfactually, the kitten falls asleep at my feet, I have not had an intention of mine frustrated, nor have I had an attempted design go astray. I simply do not care about, or intend anything concerning, or have designed in any sense where my kitten ends up falling asleep.

Is god himself designed? If not, then how came he into being?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Is god himself designed? If not, then how came he into being?

God did not "come into being."

God is the ground of being.

Originally posted by jaywill
God did not "come into being."

God is the ground of being.

Why isn't the ground the ground of being? Why do we need a magic flying leprechaun or whatever YHWH is?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Why isn't the ground the ground of being? Why do we need a magic flying leprechaun or whatever YHWH is?

You're the one who wants a goat with a funny hat.

Originally posted by jaywill
You're the one who wants a goat with a funny hat.

For my part, I keep waiting for a virus to show up that sucks the religious memories out of every man and woman on the planet, the Imams suddenly looking at his Q'ran and wondering what is all this nonsense about and the pope looking at the 2000 years of catholic dogma and going 'this is nuts' we are out of here and the same thing happening to every individual on earth. No more religious terrorists, no more billion dollar churches, no more inquisitions, no more 'are you orange or are you green', no more calling aids the work of the devil, no more rants about gays being abominations, no more Bin Laden, no more Jimmy Swaggart. Billions of people walking from the dark room of dogma into the warming rays of reason.

Originally posted by sonhouse
For my part, I keep waiting for a virus to show up that sucks the religious memories out of every man and woman on the planet, the Imams suddenly looking at his Q'ran and wondering what is all this nonsense about and the pope looking at the 2000 years of catholic dogma and going 'this is nuts' we are out of here and the same thing happening to every individ ...[text shortened]... rt. Billions of people walking from the dark room of dogma into the warming rays of reason.

do you really think the terrorists would not bomb americans and israelis if it weren't for religion? humans would find new reasons to die and make others die for.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
do you really think the terrorists would not bomb americans and israelis if it weren't for religion? humans would find new reasons to die and make others die for.

They be less likely to if they realised “to die” means literally that and have no delusional belief in the existence of any kind of “afterlife”. That may not necessarily deduce motivation to perform a terrorist atrocity that kill others (there’s no accounting for hate) but it would at least make the terrorists think twice before performing a suicidal terrorist atrocity (like flying airplanes into buildings).

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
They be less likely to if they realised “to die” means literally that and have no delusional belief in the existence of any kind of “afterlife”. That may not necessarily deduce motivation to perform a terrorist atrocity that kill others (there’s no accounting for hate) but it would at least make the terrorists think twice before performing a suicidal terrorist atrocity (like flying airplanes into buildings).

japanese kamikaze pilots suicided for their country. enough indoctrination and you can make a person do anything. religion is simply the easy way.

Originally posted by jaywill
God did not "come into being."

God is the ground of being.

Is satan himself designed?
If not, then how came he into being?