Comments on: The Problem of Evil and the Design Argument http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2010/01/02/the-problem-of-evil-and-the-design-argument/ Blogging on Philosophy and Politics Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:09:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Yet There Is Method In It » Blog Archive » Further Design Argument Considerations in Excruciating Detail http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2010/01/02/the-problem-of-evil-and-the-design-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-925 Yet There Is Method In It » Blog Archive » Further Design Argument Considerations in Excruciating Detail Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:28:46 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/?p=841#comment-925 [...] Design Argument Considerations in Excruciating Detail Origins, Religion January 17th, 2010 Comment: ‘Picky point I guess, but the argument from design makes no reference to “good [...] [...] Design Argument Considerations in Excruciating Detail Origins, Religion January 17th, 2010 Comment: ‘Picky point I guess, but the argument from design makes no reference to “good [...]

]]> By: El Sordo http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2010/01/02/the-problem-of-evil-and-the-design-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-923 El Sordo Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:19:40 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/?p=841#comment-923 To comlpete the above thought... "that standing from a relative position in time any attempt to derive a conclusive proposition that the universe is ordered and designed (thus inferring a designer) is to ignore the “complete picture” ..." I would suggest that such a complete picture is either outright impossible to obtain or is "error 404" currently unavailable! To comlpete the above thought… “that standing from a relative position in time any attempt to derive a conclusive proposition that the universe is ordered and designed (thus inferring a designer) is to ignore the “complete picture” …”

I would suggest that such a complete picture is either outright impossible to obtain or is “error 404″ currently unavailable!

]]> By: El Sordo http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2010/01/02/the-problem-of-evil-and-the-design-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-922 El Sordo Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:13:30 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/?p=841#comment-922 "We observe that universe has certain properties These are consistent with properties that we would expect from a designer (with good intentions)" Picky point I guess, but the argument from design makes no reference to "good intentions" - that would be a moral telological argument (a combination of more than one set of assumptions). The strict definition is roughly that which you proposed (minus the moral bit) that the argument from design arises because we percieve what appears to be design, order or purpose thereby implying a designer. I do like your rejection from false dichotomy. My own preference is Voltaires "... from this sole argument I cannot conclude anything further than that it is probable that an intelligent and superior being has skillfully prepared and fashioned the matter. I cannot conclude from that alone that this being has made matter out of nothing and that he is infinite in every sense." The two key terms for Voltaire is that the perception of design makes the existence of a designer "probable" but that this alone makes no definitive conclusion as to the nature of the designer. The design argument therefore is no argument but an inference, and as such any number of possible conclusions may be inferred including that the universe is the source of its own design and genesis. Ultimately though your point is valid, standing from a relative position in time any attempt to derive a conclusive proposition that the universe is ordered and designed (thus inferring a designer) is to ignore the "complete picture" - although we have a working model of the beginning and development of the universe we are still very much hypothetically discussing the "why is there something rather than nothing?" philsophy/science of it and the speculation of "what will come of the universe?" is entirely in the realm of "all the cards are on the table". It's our old is/ought problem. “We observe that universe has certain properties
These are consistent with properties that we would expect from a designer (with good intentions)”

Picky point I guess, but the argument from design makes no reference to “good intentions” – that would be a moral telological argument (a combination of more than one set of assumptions).

The strict definition is roughly that which you proposed (minus the moral bit) that the argument from design arises because we percieve what appears to be design, order or purpose thereby implying a designer.

I do like your rejection from false dichotomy.

My own preference is Voltaires
“… from this sole argument I cannot conclude anything further than that it is probable that an intelligent and superior being has skillfully prepared and fashioned the matter. I cannot conclude from that alone that this being has made matter out of nothing and that he is infinite in every sense.”

The two key terms for Voltaire is that the perception of design makes the existence of a designer “probable” but that this alone makes no definitive conclusion as to the nature of the designer.

The design argument therefore is no argument but an inference, and as such any number of possible conclusions may be inferred including that the universe is the source of its own design and genesis.

Ultimately though your point is valid, standing from a relative position in time any attempt to derive a conclusive proposition that the universe is ordered and designed (thus inferring a designer) is to ignore the “complete picture” – although we have a working model of the beginning and development of the universe we are still very much hypothetically discussing the “why is there something rather than nothing?” philsophy/science of it and the speculation of “what will come of the universe?” is entirely in the realm of “all the cards are on the table”.

It’s our old is/ought problem.

]]>