"What principles do all design arguments for the existence of God base themselves on?"?

Question

My homework question for A Level Religious Studies (Philosophy of Religion). I understand the topic in general, and I have knowledge of the various arguments, but I find it hard to answer a vague question like this. Any ideas?

It's not an essay question, I don't need to give a really lengthy answer, but I have no ideas to work with at all!

Answer 1

Do design arguments all presuppose somthing like the ontological arguments-- that an effect must not be greater than the cause? You're supposed to find this watch on the beach, with Paley, and instantly find it most plausible that someone made it and dropped it, and not that the waves somehow randomly manufactured the intricate device. I think the trick is epistemic-- what makes an entity designed depends on our elegance of explanation. If it is amazingly complex, then it's not plausible (however possible) the thing is not intentionally designed.

Richard Dawkins has written clearly on how natural selection is not a random process in "The Blind Watchmaker". It's a cumulative process. An analogy: instead of thinking of it as step-by-step, i.e. random (like a wave creating a watch on one pass), the process is cumulative like that of an assortment of sieves, selecting finer and finer grains of sand.

It's about explanation. Prior to Darwin I can imagine why design might be plausible, but it's unrealistic now. Hume had some objections to teleological arguments as well. Something like you need a frame of reference to judge whether something is designed, and we can't compare our incredibly vast universe to any other to adjudicate this. Or if we were walking along the beach stepping on cut gems, there's no way we'd know offhand unless we knew from the get-go they don't just appear in nature that way.

Answer 2

It probably won't help you write your essay, but one thing all arguments for design base themselves on is a misunderstanding of what design is.

Ask any engineer what's the hallmark of a well-designed system, they'll tell you: simplicity - ie the minimum needed to achieve an end. That's why Heath Robinson's drawings are so funny - they are unnecessarily complex, exactly what we don't expect from good design.

But the design argument for God is based on the opposite: "look at this, it's so complex, it must have been designed". Everything we know about the universe, the world, the body, point to how complex they are. A designer, particularly a supernatural omnipotent one, wouldn't have needed to burden us with all this complexity.

The second problem about arguing from design is that it presupposes we have something non-designed to compare it again. Paley's argument about the watch found on the heath is invalid for many reasons, but not least because we can distinguish the watch from the natural surroundings - because we know it is designed and the grass of the heath is not. If everything, including the grass, is designed, we would have no way of distinguishing "designed" objects. That's where arguments such as Intelligent Design fail.

Answer 3

The basis of Design arguments is called the teleological argument. A teleologic argument posits a goal (the Desiger's, i.e. God) of which the Universe's design is a manifest sign of this goal. The classic teleological argument looks like this:

Teleological Argument (A)
Look at the universe, world, human eye. Isn't it incredibly complex?
I can’t explain it.
Only God could have made them so complex.
Therefore, God exists.

Argument from Beauty, variation (B) of the Teleological Argument

Isn't that sunset, flower, waterfall beautiful?
Only God could have made them so beautiful.
Therefore, God exists.

St. Anselm was the first to use the Design argument. Be careful, even he admitted it's weakness saying that one had to first believe before the argument had much resonance.

Answer 4

The teleological argument, as you have been given an example of.
Example II. The argument from incredulity.
" Every thing is so incredible complex, beautiful,varied, miraculous, etc., that there must be a God.

Answer 5

The Christians base their beliefs of the existence of God, from the Bible.
The six days of creation, the God that rests and grows weary.
The God, that kills what he makes, and every one thinks its all right.
God gives and takes away, "Here's five dollars, oppsy.. you know what I need that money back."
That's not a good God now is it,? That is a conieving hateful God..
Hey don't mind me, God made me an athesist, he's okay with it.
Why would your philopher teacher even bring the stupidty of God into the class room?

Answer 6

Some of those principles would be:
A first cause to the universe: the principle of origins.
The principle of life: the creator God.
The answer to the mystery of time: the principle of a rational God.
Fear of mortality: the God of the mystery of death.

Answer 7

Life can only come from life. Evolutionists do not have a complete argument, even after a century and a half of looking for one. (Can you prove a direct genetic link between any species which exists today and a recognisably different species which lived x amount of millenia ago but which no longer exists today? I challenge you to try.) God may have had a valid reason for creating us and then allowing us to deny His existence.

Answer 8

Electra, This question should be in english 101. It appears : what principles do all people use to design arguments for the existance of God. I don't know about the question but I don't need principles or design. I know God exists because he proved it to me,by the hundreds of experiences given to me. Faith is fulfilled in experience. what we call faith is but the spirit of God within our heart prompting us to seek,all seeking (DESIRE)is a search for God.

Answer 9

The True order of the Universe. Look for the patterns. Random existence is too chaotic. There for when one finds patterns then one finds intelligence.
Here is a hint:


Square
Circle
Triangle
Curve line
Ect.

Answer 10

Cillit Bang advert is the answer to the universe and everything