Okay let me try another one.
1. In human creation (houses, watches, etc) we find the adaptation of means to ends that are the result of design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence.
2. In nature we find similar adapting of means to ends, but on a much grander scale
3. From similar effects we may infer similar causes
4. So it must be the case that the magnificent mechanism of the universe is the result of a very great, wise, intelligent designer.
2007-03-31 16:49:04 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Ah, is there a smurfin' watchmaker in the house?
2007-03-31 18:39:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
5. In the intelligent designer we find the adaptation of means to ends that are the result of design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence.
6. So it must be the case that intelligent designer is the result of a very great, wise, and even more intelligent designer designer.
Can you guess what 7 and 8 will be?
2007-03-31 23:53:14 · answer #2 · answered by Michael 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
what happened to the rational part ? in an infinite universe the odds are more than in favor of this imperfect world coming about by chance ...just think about it ! for more than a few minutes that is.....if the god fool awful design actually looked intelligent we wouldn't be having this discussion now would we...dumb luck matches perfecty with the knowledge we have of the universe to date less the oxymoron.
Are parasites and anuses intelligent design in your estimate ? I'm sure a supreme being capable of a creation would do much better .
2007-03-31 23:59:02 · answer #3 · answered by dogpatch USA 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The argument is called "intelligent design", and it is total baloney. Natural selection is entirely sufficient to explain the complexities of life that we see today. But the real problem with "intelligent design" is not that it is provably wrong (it isn't), but that it is provably useless: it cannot be used to predict anything about how the world works. The weakest part of your logic chain is #3, which is completely groundless.
2007-04-01 00:12:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The analogy is flawed because the human creation / adaptation is fundamentally different from the divine. God does not create by means of adaptation to a pre-existing environment. So (2) is problematic.
2007-04-01 00:02:28 · answer #5 · answered by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Um, what's so magnificent about the universe?
You assume that there are inherent features about the universe that would indicate design.
To me, the universe is a random as anything can be.
Planets, Stars, Galaxies, are all strewn about the universe.
Please, describe what you think is designed about the universe.
2007-03-31 23:56:33 · answer #6 · answered by RED MIST! 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not really. Just becuase there are trees, animals, flowers etc.does not mean they had a "great, wise, intelligent designer". Nice try though.
2007-04-01 00:06:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nobody can really prov if god is real. If god is so real then why are all these little innocent girls getting raped, why is there a chance of global warming, and why are all these bad things happening. Truthfully I do not think god is real.
2007-03-31 23:58:12 · answer #8 · answered by Melissa (rox my sox) 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anything irreducibly complex requires a designer, correct? Is god irreducibly complex?
Your argument leads to a logical contradiction.
2007-03-31 23:59:23 · answer #9 · answered by Jim L 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Referring to #4:
You are saying complexity arises from complexity (the NON-random natural process - evolution, says complexity arises from simplicity, btw - which is observable in every day life) and yet you give NO justified reason to how your god got that complexity in the first place.
... you have a flawed argument (i.e., not rational).
2007-03-31 23:54:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋