![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/08\/NebulaeHubbleNASA.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This discussion came about underneath my post,\u00a0Seidensticker Folly #41: Argument from Design.<\/a>\u00a0gusbovona<\/a>\u00a0is a lifelong atheist. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n First of all, science, as presently defined and self-understood, cannot state one way or another whether God (assuming His existence for the sake of argument) designed anything or not, since its subject and object of study is matter, and God (again by definition) is not material.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 1. Bob\u2019s statement, to which the quote above is a response, said nothing about God, merely a designer. He was asking not whether God designed something, but whether something is designed (by anyone), at all.<\/span><\/p>\n 2. I\u2019m not sure what other criteria we could use to determine if something is designed or not other than the nature of the thing designed itself.<\/span><\/p>\n In fact, Bob mentions \u201cGod\u201d five times in his article<\/a>, and seven times in the previous related one<\/a>, four days earlier. It\u2019s understood that the argument from design is the old teleological argument, which is one of the classic theistic proofs: and those deal with God as defined in theism, or (at the very least) a Humean deist-god: who sets the universe in motion and then proceeds to have no further interest in it. I don\u2019t recall ever seeing any\u00a0other<\/i>\u00a0kind of \u201cargument from design.\u201d But maybe they\u2019re out there somewhere.<\/p>\n Also, the terms \u201ccreationism\u201d and \u201cintelligent design\u201d both refer to schools of thought in which it is thought that God is the Creator in some fashion (it could be through evolution as the method). So when Bob tries to shoot down various arguments that such advocates produce, he\u2019s dealing with proposed arguments for God\u2019s existence.<\/p>\n Any way we look at it, God is being discussed. My point above was to note that consistent materialist science ought not mention God at all<\/em>, either fer or agin\u2019. To do so is (technically) philosophy and no longer science as presently defined.<\/p>\n Sure, we can look at the things themselves, but how is it that we \u201cknow\u201d whether they are as they \u201cshould\u201d be, or have any expectations at all? If God is super-intelligent or omniscient, surely, most if not all things He created would be beyond our comprehension, either totally, or to a significant extent: just as no one would expect a guinea pig to be able to read and comprehend this reply.<\/p>\n Determin[ing] whether something is designed is logically prior to identifying who the designer is. (That\u2019s because identifying a designer of something necessarily presumes that something was designed.) Bob\u2019s statement, \u201cDoes life on earth look designed by an intelligence?\u201d merely refers to the first step. It\u2019s fine that Bob mentions God in the rest of the article, and whether something is designed can be part of a discussion about a god, but that is a separate issue from determining whether something is designed, in and of itself.<\/span><\/p>\n Good discussion.<\/p>\n I like it, too, and I\u2019m glad you do.<\/span><\/p>\n You seem to keep missing my points and my intentions in argument, but it\u2019s stimulating argumentation.\u00a0I was simply noting that the teleological argument was always about whether a God exists Who is the Designer.<\/p>\n This might be a fundamental way we\u2019re not seeing things the same way. I am trying to talk about a much smaller point than you are. I\u2019m just talking about one thing Bob said that concerned only an intelligent designer, and not a god. They are logically and intellectually separable issues, and that\u2019s what my original comment was trying to talk about.<\/span><\/p>\n Secondly (as a good socratic), I delved deep into the premises that Bob assumed, and wondered aloud why he thinks he can determine whether something is \u2018junk\u201d or not, and why he can\u2019t figure out that science continues to explain what were formerly mysteries, and will continue to do so. A little intellectual humility is in order.<\/p>\n It is hypothetical thinking any way you look at it: whether in a scientific or philosophical \/ religious sense. If the speculation has to do with God, it is a relevant consideration to note that God, as classically understood in theistic philosophy and orthodox Christianity, is an omniscient being.<\/p>\n It could be aliens who designed life, no? That can\u2019t be ruled out hypothetically. Also, why should the designer of life necessarily also be the designer of the universe?<\/span><\/p>\n Strictly speaking, no (it could also have been \u201cthe flying spaghetti monster\u201d), but according to scientific evidence, we have none whatsoever for the existence of aliens. If you\u2019re gonna play the game within a [materialistic] scientific paradigm, then you need to consistently do that.<\/p>\n Sure, it\u2019s only a hypothesis, but you said that you didn\u2019t recall any other option for a designer besides god, so I just offered one. That\u2019s all that was.<\/span><\/p>\n But talking about possible aliens and then turning around taking the usual potshots at God (\u201cResorting to a cause that is beyond our comprehension creates an unfalsifiable hypothesis \u2013 anything can be explained by the same move: no matter how insane an explanation might be\u201d<\/span>) is self-contradictory and \u201crhetorically unfair and unjust.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s not a potshot, it was a substantive critique of an unfalsifiable hypothesis.<\/span><\/p>\n Science does not make the move of appealing to an unfalsifiable hypothesis like appealing to the incomprehensibility of a god. And, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as unfalsifiability. The hypothesis that aliens might have created life is certainly falsifiable, and one big step towards falsifying it would be to discover a naturalistic way to create life. That\u2019s not a proof, but Occam\u2019s Razor would then favor the naturalistic hypothesis over aliens and a god.<\/span><\/p>\n Appeals to possible alien life, minus any scientific evidence whatsoever for such a thing, is contradictory within the materialistic scientific paradigm. It\u2019s nonsensical.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t know why aliens creating life is an appeal: it was a hypothesis that provides an option besides a god for the creation of life. That\u2019s all. It merely allows us to say, \u201cSome god is not the only option for an intelligent designer of life.\u201d What is nonsensical about the hypothesis that aliens created life (on Earth, as we know it)? Note that this says nothing about whether it is true or not.<\/span><\/p>\n But appeal to the existence of God in a philosophical \/ religious framework is perfectly reasonable and consistent, since empirical evidence is not necessarily required within that way of thought.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t know what an appeal is. Substantively, all you have a hypothesis or a claim for which there is either sufficient support to adopt or not, or we don\u2019t yet know if we have sufficient support for it yet. How does an appeal fit into that? Is an appeal equal to a hypothesis? If so, then I understand and agree. One can certainly hypothesize that a god created life.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n As long as some god has an effect within our universe, science certainly can try to determine whether such an effect exists by studying those effects just like any other effect in our universe. If science finds that the effect doesn\u2019t exist, that effect can\u2019t be used as evidence that some god caused it.<\/span><\/p>\n Whether things are as they \u201cshould\u201d be is changing the topic, I was talking about the argument from design. It\u2019s about whether something was designed by an intelligence rather than occurring naturally. \u201cShould\u201d has nothing to do with that; that\u2019s a different topic.<\/span><\/p>\n Resorting to a cause that is beyond our comprehension creates an unfalsifiable hypothesis \u2013 anything can be explained by the same move: no matter how insane an explanation might be, when it\u2019s insanity or logical problems are revealed, one could \u2013 by using that move \u2013 wave it away by saying it was accomplished by some entity that is beyond our comprehension.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n The discussion is getting more and more abstract and minute (which in my mind equates to being less useful or constructive, but that\u2019s just my own preference). I\u2019m seeking answers to the relevant, premise-level questions I asked Bob:<\/p>\n [W]hat makes us (whether theist or atheist) think in the first place that we can figure out what nature should or ought to \u201clook like\u201d?<\/p>\n How does Bob\u00a0know<\/i>\u00a0that this is the case? How can he prove it? How does he \u201cknow\u201d that God would \u201cnever\u201d deliberately incorporate what he (ultimately arbitrarily) defines as \u201cjunk\u201d?<\/p>\n [U]nder the hypothesis of a super-intelligent, ultimately incomprehensible, omniscient God, why would we expect anything at all? What makes us think we can figure out all His designs (pun intended) and purposes and methods, etc.: anymore than an ant or a catfish would understand all of ours?<\/p>\n By what criterion do we determine if something is \u201cbizarre\u201d?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I answer my own rhetorical questions:<\/p>\n I\u2019m contending that a more nuanced form of the argument holds that nature (or, creation, if there is a Creator) need not \u201clook like\u201d what our paltry little brains think it \u201cshould\u201d look like: that whatever the truth is, it\u2019ll be full of surprises, and we shouldn\u2019t \u201cexpect\u201d anything, except to be blown away and surprised by the marvelous complexity entailed. What we have already discovered fully bears that out.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note that I think this point applies to a materialistic and a theistic universe.<\/p>\n I continue to seek answers to the questions I asked in my post. So far, no takers, but it has been stimulating discussion, and I most appreciate the fact that it is congenial and with mutual respect (unlike at least 95% of Christian-atheist discussion these days).<\/p>\n I don\u2019t think the discussion is exhausted, particularly if we are talking about what flows from my original comment, and not your wider disagreement with Bob about God. What remains to be addressed is this: inferring design from the characteristics of an object is an empirical question, so whatever math, logic, and philosophy have to contribute to that question has to ultimately be verified by an empirical process, correct?<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t see that it\u2019s only an empirical question. I think it\u2019s ultimately philosophical, just as physical science itself reduces to philosophy because it is a species of philosophy. In fact, I think the question of whether there is a Designer transcends science because I think it is the point at which science can no longer offer explanatory answers. Therefore, it\u2019s permissible to enter into philosophical speculation as to what could have caused the observable design and complexity.<\/p>\n It\u2019s the point of irreducible complexity. Science \/empiricism has yet to adequately explain the origin of the Big Bang, of life, and of things like DNA, and even most of the major transitions in evolution (not even close), so I reserve the \u201cepistemological right\u201d to posit a non-physical God Who is the Designer. Science has to recognize its limitations.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Related Reading<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\nFamed Atheist Champion Antony Flew Became a Deist (Studies in Flew\u2019s Justification of His Change of Mind and the Predictable Reaction of Atheists)<\/a>\u00a0[1-18-05]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nTeleological (Design) Argument for God (Resources)<\/a>\u00a0[10-27-15]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nDogmatic Materialist Scientists vs. Intelligent Design<\/a>\u00a0[10-29-15]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAtheists & Inherent \u201cOmnipotent\u201d Creative Qualities of Godless Matter<\/a>\u00a0[7-26-17]
\n*<\/div>\nDialogue with an Atheist on \u201cGod of the Gaps\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[6-24-18]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nDialogue: Has God Demonstrated His Existence (Romans 1)?<\/a>\u00a0[9-1-18]
\n*<\/div>\nCatholics & Origins: Irreducible Complexity or Theistic Evolution?<\/a>\u00a0[6-17-19]<\/div>\n