101 - l2 - the argument from design

8/11/2019 101 - L2 - The Argument From Design

1/34

PHI 101

Professor Douglas W. Portmore

Lecture 2: The Argument from Design

Copyright 2012 by Douglas W. Portmore

Last Updated: 3:28 PM on December 22, 2013

1. Overview

* In this and the next lecture we will be considering the following question: DoesGod exist?

* Suppose we want to know whether a Shmorlock exists? What do we need toknow right off the bat?

2. Continued

* If we want to know whether X exists, its important to get clear on[what exactlyX is]. And it is important to figure out what might constitute[evidence that X

does or does not exist].

* There are many different conceptions of God, but I plan to focus on just one: theone that is shared by the three Abrahamic religions (viz., Islam, Judaism, and

Christianity).

* We will consider only whether God so conceived exists. Nothing that I say in thisor the next lecture will count for or against the existence of Zeus, Jupiter, Ra,

Osiris, Thor, Apollo, Shiva, Vishnu, or any other god that doesnt have all of the

attributes that the God of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity has.


2/34

3. Gods Essential Attributes

* (1) God isomniscient(i.e., all-knowing).

*What does this mean?

* It means that he knows[all truths].

* X is omniscient if and only if X knows[all truths].

* X knows[all truths]is equivalent to which of the following (pick as many asapply:

For any proposition P, X knows that P.

For any true proposition P, X knows that P.

X knows only whats true.

X knows all and only those propositions that are true.

4. God Is Omnipotent

* (2) God isomnipotent(i.e., all-powerful).

* What does this mean?

* Does this mean that God can do anything?

* Can God create a boulder that is so massive that even He cannot move it?

* [It seems that we must answer yes or no to this question and that either waythere will be something that god cannot do]. This is the so-calledparadox of

omnipotence.


3/34

* The solution to the paradox to omnipotence lies with understanding thatomnipotence is thepower(the ability plus opportunity)[to bring about any

logically possible state of affairs].

5. Understanding Omnipotence

* X is omnipotent if and only if X has the power (the ability plus opportunity) tobring about any[logically possible state of affairs]. For any proposition P, P is

logically possible if and only if P is not necessarily false.

* X has the power to bring about any logically possible state of affairs is equivalentto which of the following (choose as many as apply):

X can do anything.

X does that which is logically possible.

X can do anything that is logically possible.

For any proposition P, X can bring it about that P is true.

For any proposition P that is not necessarily false, X can bring it about

that P is true.

For any proposition P that is logically possible, X can bring it about that Pis true.

* Another way of thinking about it: P is logically possible if and only if P does notviolate the laws of logic [e.g., the law of non-contradiction, which holds not-(P &

not-P); the law of excluded middle, which holds (P or not-P); and the law of

identity, which holds (G = G)].

6. Which are, and which are not, logically possible?

* There are cows that can fly over the moon.

* Some bachelors are married.


4/34

* Fred is neither fallible nor infallible.

* Fred is neither happy nor unhappy.

* DWP is neither tall nor short.

* DWP is both tall and not tall.

* DWP is both tall and short.

* DWP is not identical to himself.

7. Continued

* More examples:

* Masses repel one another.

* P; If P, then Q; and ~Q.

*Unicorns exist.

* Masses often accelerate without being acted upon by any force.

* Some particles travel faster than the speed of light.

8. The Solution to the Paradox (Taking it Step by Step)

* (P1) God is essentially omnipotent.

* (P2) If God isessentiallyomnipotent, then it is not logically possible for him to dosomething that would render himself non-omnipotent.


5/34

* (C1) Thus, it is not logically possible for God to do something that would renderhimself non-omnipotent. (From P1 and P2.)

* (P4) If it were logically possible for God to create a boulder that he couldnt lift,then it would be logically possible for God to do something that would render

himself non-omnipotent.

* (C2) Therefore, it is not logically possible for God to create a boulder that hecouldnt lift. (From C1 and P4.)

* (P5) God, being omnipotent, can do all and only that which is logically possible.

* (C3) Therefore, God cannot create a boulder that he couldnt lift. (From C2 andP5)

* Should we accept each inference? And should we accept each of the premises?

9. A Worry

* So we have two competing definitions of omnipotence.

* On definition 1, X is omnipotent if and only if X can do anything.

* On definition 2, X is omnipotent if and only if X can do anything that is logicallypossible.

* Definition 2 solves the paradox of omnipotence but entails that Gods power isconstrained by the laws of logic, although this may not be much of a constraint at

all.

* Definition 1 leaves Gods power unconstrained but leaves the paradox ofomnipotence unsolved.


6/34

10. More of Gods Essential Attributes

* (3) God iswholly and supremely goodand thus omni-benevolent.

*To say that God is wholly and supremely good is to say that God is good in everyrespect and that, in each respect, He is good to the ultimate degree.

* X is wholly and supremely good if and only if X is good in every respect and, ineach respect, is good to the ultimate degree.

* For our purposes, its important to realize that this implies that God is perfectlybenevolent (omni-benevolent) and, thus, will, to the best of His knowledge and

abilities, make the world as good as He can make it.

* Thus, God is omni-benevolent if and only if God ensures, to the best of Hisknowledge and abilities, that ours is the best world. Thus, for any two alternative

worlds, W1 and W2, where W1 is better than W2, God (omni-benevolent)

ensures that our world is W1 provided that he knows that W1 is better than W2

and is able to bring about W1 in place of W2.


7/34

11. And yet more

* (4) God is separate from and independent of the physical universe. Everything inthe physical universe could be utterly annihilated without God ceasing to exist.

* (5) God is himself a non-physical being.

* (6) God is the creator of the physical universe.

* (7) God is eternal, existing at all times.

* (8) God is self-existent. He was not caused to exist.

*(9) God is a necessary being.

12. The Way Forward

* Given these attributes of God, what would count as evidence for or against theexistence of God?

* Well, if a being with such attributes were the creator of our world, then weshould expect our world[to be the best possible world and to have all the signs

of being the product of intelligent design.].

13. The Argument from Design: Comparing the Stone and the Watch

* While crossing a vast wasteland, you stumble across both a stone and an object

that appears to be a watch. You examine this object closely and discover that it isa watch, a mechanism consisting of several intricate parts that work together so

as to keep track of time.

* How do you suppose the stone came to be there? Might it have just lain thereforever?


8/34

* How do you suppose the watch came to be there? Might it have just lain thereforever?

* Why cant you give the same answer? What about the watch makes it implausibleto suppose that it might have just lain there forever?

14. Our Conclusion about the Watch

* The watch is composed of several intricate parts that are structured in such a wayas to perform a function (to serve a certain purpose). It is, therefore, what we call

ateleological system.

*X is a teleological system if and only if X is a system of parts that are so arrangedthat, under the proper conditions, they work together to serve some purpose or

to perform some function. A watch is a teleological system. It is composed of

cogs, gears, hands, and a dial, and they all work together to tell time. The human

eye is also a teleological system composed of a lens, a retina, and an optic nerve

that all work together to allow a human being to see. The stone, by contrast, is not

a teleological system.

* From the fact that the watch is a teleological system, what may we conclude?

* Answer: The watch is[of product of intelligent design].


9/34

15. Which are teleological systems?

* A computer.

*A mouse trap.

* A stone.

* A fiberglass pole.

* The human circulatory system.

* An arrowhead.

* A refrigerator.

* Rubber tubing.

16. Our Conclusion that the Watch is the Product of Intelligent Design

* Does the fact that we have never seen such an intricate machine designed andbuilt undermine our conclusion?

* Suppose that we discover certain imperfections, e.g., that the mechanism seemsto be a bit slow, falling behind a few ticks each year. Would this undermine our

conclusion?

* Does the fact that certain components of the mechanism have no apparentfunction undermine our conclusion?


10/34

17. Continued

* Would any man of his senses think that the watch is just a random occurrence,one of several possible configurations of the material atoms of which it is

composed?

* What if we had no prior knowledge of watches or their origins? Would thisundermine our conclusion?

* What if we saw two watches produce another watch? Would this undermine ourconclusion?

18. Paleys Point

* What is Paleys point in asking these questions?

* His point is that, although such things are true of[various biological organisms](weve never seen them designed or built, they have imperfections, they have

parts that serve no function, they are self-replicating, etc.), this should not

undermine our conclusion that they too, like the watch, are[the products of

intelligent design].

19. Are biological organisms and their systems and parts teleological systems?

* The eyes of fish are more convex than those of land animals in order tocompensate for the way light is refracted when it passes through water.

* The lens is positioned perfectly so that the focal point of the lens is exactly at theback of the eye.

* The eye combines lenses composed of different materials so as to compensate forthe prism effect.

* The pupils of the eye contract and expand depending on the availability of light.


11/34

20. Continued

* The eye contorts so as to be able to bring into focus both near and far awayobjects.

* There are many devices for protecting the eye: eye brows, eyelashes, eyelids, tearducts, etc.

* The eyes of different animals differ according to their needs. Fish dont have tearducts, eels have special protective domes around their eyes to protect them when

they burrow through sand, birds have special muscles and organs that enable

them to focus on near and far away objects.

21. The Argument from Design, v1 (An Argument by Analogy)

* STAGE 1: (P1) Biological organisms are like watches in that they are teleologicalsystems.

* (P2) Watches have the further property of being the products of intelligentdesign.

* End/start of STAGE 1/STAGE 2: (C1) Therefore, biological organisms have thefurther property of being the products of intelligent design.

* (P3) If biological organisms are the products of intelligent design, then Godexists.

* (C2) Therefore, God exists.


12/34

22. Evaluating the First Stage



* End/start of STAGE 1/STAGE 2: (C1) Therefore, biological organisms have thefurther property of being the products of intelligent design.

* Should we accept both premises?

*[It seems so].

* Is this a deductive or inductive argument? Inductive Argument

* Is it a strong argument? Strong

23. Arguments by Analogy

*Arguments by analogy have the following general form:

* 1. X and Y share properties a, b, c, .

* 2. X has the further property z.

* 3. Therefore, Y also has the further property z.

* Arguments by analogy are inductive arguments. The premises, if true, can atmost make the conclusion probable, not certain (as with valid arguments).


13/34

24. Evaluating Arguments by Analogy

* We assess such arguments using the following criteria:

*1. What are the relevant respects in which X and Y are similar? In general, themore relevant respects X and Y share, the better the argument.

* 2. Are X and Y dissimilar in any relevant respects? Relevant dissimilarities tendto weaken the argument.

* 3. Are there things (other than X) that are similar to Y in the relevant respectsthat do not have property z? To the extent that there are, the analogy breaks

down and the argument is poor one. To the extent that there are not, the analogy

holds up.


14/34

25. An example

* 1. Jills car is similar to Jacks car in that

*2. Jacks car gets 30 mpg.

* 3. Therefore, Jills car gets 30 mpg.

* What similarities would be relevant in this case? That is, what similaritiesbetween Jacks car and Jills car would increase the likelihood that Jills car gets

30 mpg?

26. Continued

* What similarities would be irrelevant in this case?

* What dissimilarities would be relevant in this case? That is, what dissimilaritiesbetween Jacks car and Jills car would decrease the likelihood that Jills car gets

30 mpg?

* Suppose that Bobs car shares all the same properties that Jills car shares with

Jacks car, and yet Bobs car doesnt get 30 mpg. What effect would this have onthe strength of the argument?

27. Continued

* Suppose that were comparing Jills car to Jacks car and that Jacks car gets 25mpg. For each of the following, say whether it (i) counts for, (ii) counts against, or

(iii) counts neither for nor against the conclusion that Jills car also gets 25 mpg.

(a) Both Jills car and Jacks car are 2005 Toyota Camrys. (b) Jills car is red, butJacks car is blue. (c) Jacks car has a four cylinder engine, whereas Jills car has a

larger, six cylinder engine. (d) Bills car has all the properties that Jills car shares

in common with Jacks car, but Bills car gets only 20 mpg.


15/34

28. Evaluating the Reasoning in Stage 1



* (C1) Therefore, biological organisms have the further property of being theproducts of intelligent design.

29. Continued

* What are the relevant respects in which watches and biological organisms aresimilar?

* Are watches and biological organisms dissimilar in any relevant respects?

* Are there things (other than biological organisms) that are similar to watches inthe relevant respects, but that we know are not the products of intelligent design?

30. Continued

* The analogy, and thus the argument,[is pretty weak, for there is a relevantdifference between]the watch and biological organisms:

* [Unlike watches, biological organisms reproduce, compete for both survivaland the chance to reproduce, and possess variable heritable traits that either

enhance or diminish their chances for survival and reproduction]. Given these

differences, biological organisms, unlike watches, are subject to natural selection.

This is a relevant difference, because given that biological organisms are subjectto natural selection it makes sense to suppose that they might have come to exist

as the result of evolution by natural selection as opposed to as the result of

intelligent design. By contrast, it doesnt make sense to suppose that watches

might have evolved (watches dont reproduce, dont compete for survival, and

dont have variable, heritable traits).


16/34

31. Final Assessment

* Evaluate the argument below. (a) Are there some premises that we should notaccept? If so, state which ones and explain why we should not accept them. (b)

Do the premises, if true, provide good grounds for accepting the conclusion? Ifnot, explain why not.

* (P1) Biological organisms are like watches in that they are teleological systems.

* (P2) Watches have the further property of being products of intelligent design.Relevant different between biological organisms and watches

* (C1) Therefore, biological organisms have the further property of being products

of intelligent design.

32. The Argument from Design, v2 (An Argument from Best Explanation)

* Perhaps, the following is a better argument:

* STAGE 1: (P1*) OBSERVATION: Biological organisms are teleological systems.

* (P2*) EXPLANATION: The hypothesis that biological organisms are the productsof intelligent design provides a possible explanation for the observation made in

P1*.

* (P3*) COMPARISON: No other hypothesis provides an explanation at least asgood as the one offered in P2*.

* End/start of STAGE 1/STAGE 2 : (C1) CONCLUSION: Therefore, biologicalorganisms are the products of intelligent design.

* Do the premises, if true, provide good grounds for accepting the conclusion? Arethere any premises that we should not accept?


17/34

33. Evaluating P3*

* Recall: (P3*) COMPARISON: No other hypothesis provides an explanation atleast as good as the one offered in P2*.

* What other possible explanations are there for the observation that biologicalorganisms are teleological systems?

* Are any of these better than the intelligent design hypothesis?

34. Evolution by Natural Selection

* If left unchecked, populations grow at exponential rates. But real populationsdon't grow exponentially. Their growth rates are fairly stable.

* Therefore, there must be a continuous struggle for survival among members of agiven species for the scarce resources (food, water, mates, safe havens from

predators, etc.) that enable them to reach maturity and leave offspring.

* Creatures vary in their ability to secure these scarce resources in virtue of theirphysical traits. Some creatures are, given these physical traits, more "fit" to

prevail in the struggle for existence and reproduction than others.


18/34

35. Continued

* Much of the variation found in the physical traits of creatures is heritable.Creatures that succeed in reproducing pass many of their traits on to their

descendants.

* Therefore, creatures with heritable traits that help make it possible for them tosurvive and reproduce will often pass on these traits to their descendants, while

those that lack these traits will not survive so as to pass on their traits. Hence,

there will be a natural selection in favor of the traits that contribute to "fitness."

36. Continued

* Over extended periods of time, with changes in the environment, this process ofnatural selection could greatly alter the traits represented in a population, so

much so that entirely new species with new, more advanced teleological systems

could evolve.

37. Competing Hypotheses

* So we have two competing hypotheses (or explanations) for the fact thatbiological organisms are teleological systems: theevolution hypothesis(the

hypothesis that biological organisms are the products of evolution by natural

selection) and thedesign hypothesis(the hypothesis that biological organisms are

the products of intelligent design). And we should also consider a species of the

design hypothesis: the explanation for the fact that biological organisms are

teleological systems is that biological organisms were created by God in the

manner described inGenesis. Call this thecreation hypothesis.


19/34

38. Evaluating Competing Hypotheses

* Consider the following two competing explanations for the noises in the wallsthat occur when someone is taking a hot shower in the master bathroom.

* The Leprechaun Hypothesis

* The Pipe Expansion Hypothesis.

* Which is better and why?

39. Criteria for Determining Whats the Best Explanation/Hypothesis

* Heres what we should look for in deciding which hypothesis/explanation isbest:

* Simplicity:Other things being equal, one hypothesis is better than somecompeting hypothesis if it is simpler than the other, and one hypothesis is

simpler than another if and only if it requires us to postulate the existence of

fewer unknown entities, properties, or processesthat is, fewer entities,

properties, and processes beyond those that we already know to exist.

* The simpler explanation is not necessarily the one that is less complicated oreasier to understand.

* Examples of two competing hypotheses, one of which is simpler than the other

* Crop circles, reports of alien abduction, and big footprints in the Sierras


20/34

40. Continued

* The evolution hypothesis (the hypothesis that biological organisms are theproducts of evolution by natural selection) is, for instance, simpler than the

design hypothesis (the hypothesis that biological organisms are the products ofintelligent design) in that the evolution hypothesis explains both the existence

and teleological structure of biological organisms in terms of entities, properties,

and processes that we already know to exist, such as: genes, reproduction,

physical traits, survival pressures, and natural selection. The design hypothesis,

by contrast, postulates that some unknown God or alien race exists and that

He/they designed and produced biological organisms by some unknown

process.


21/34

41. Continued

* Coherence:Other things being equal, one hypothesis is better than somecompeting hypothesis if it coheres better with other things that we know to be

true, and a hypothesis coheres with other known truths if and only if theseknown truths and the claims presupposed by the hypothesis mutually support

one another.

* The evolution hypothesis coheres well with many of the things that we know:that natural selection does occur, that artificial selection can produce dramatic

changes in a species, that phenotype is largely a product of genotype, that there

has been continental drifts that resulted in populations becoming isolated from

one another, etc. On the design and creation hypotheses, there is less coherence,

as these facts are unrelated to why biological organisms are the way they are.

42. Continued

* Explanatory Power:Other things being equal, one hypothesis is better than somecompeting hypothesis if it has greater explanatory power than the other, and one

hypothesis has greater explanatory power than another if and only if it can

explain more observations than the other one can.

*Note the difference between this and coherence. The evolution hypothesis doesntexplain artificial selection, continental drifts, evolution by natural selection, etc.

but it does cohere with these known truths.

43. Continued

* The evolution hypothesis can explain the fossil record, why sickle-cell anemia ismore prevalent in African American populations, why there are vestigial organs

(e.g., eyes in moles, tail bones in humans, digits in the fins of whales, etc.), whymany teleological systems in nature are jury-rigged (e.g., the Panda's thumb),

why men have nipples and why women have clitorises, etc.


22/34

44. Continued

* The creation hypothesis cant explain any of these observations and the broaderdesign hypothesis can explain only some of these. Biological organisms look

much more like systems jury-rigged from existing structures, than systemsdesigned from a clean slate.

45. Continued

* Predictive Power:Other things being equal, one hypothesis is better than someother competing hypothesis if it yields more testable predictions that is,

predictions that can be used to either support or falsify the hypothesis.

46. Continued

* The evolution hypothesis has made lots of specific predictions, unexpected at thetime, that have been confirmed by later observations: (1) that, once isolated, a

splinter population would come to have different traits from its source

population, (2) that, as Darwin predicted, an animal with a 30 cm proboscis must

exist to feed on and pollinate the Comet Orchid (Angraecum), which has a very

long spur in its flowers (twenty years after Darwins death, such an animal was

discovered: a form of hawk moth), and (3) that we would find in the humangenome a lot of junk DNA, DNA that codes for physical traits that we dont

possess but that can found in our evolutionary ancestorsDNA, for instance,

that codes for the growth or the development of gills, (4) that we would find

dinosaur DNA in birds, (5) that we would never encounter an organism that

undergoes metamorphosis after reproduction, etc. The creation and design

hypotheses are untestable, for they make no predictions.

47. Testing Your Understanding


23/34

* Which, if any, of the following make one hypothesis (say, H1) better than another(say, H2) (choose as many as apply and, if none apply, choose none of the

above)? (a) H1 is less complicated than H2. (b) H1 postulates only that humans

exist, whereas H2 postulates both that humans exist and that lizards exist. (c) H1

postulates only that God exists, whereas H2 postulates that both humans andGod exist. (d) H1 can explain both why humans exist and why men have nipples,

whereas H2 can explain only why humans exist. (e) H1 makes some predictions,

whereas H2 makes no predictions. (f) H1 better coheres with various known

truths than H2 does. (g) H1 coheres with the claim that God exists whereas H2

does not. (h) None of the above.

48. Conclusion about the Argument from Design, v2

* The premises, if true,[do]provide good grounds for accepting the conclusion.

[However], the argument is[not a good one, for we should not accept P3].

Indeed,[P3 is false and its false because the evolution hypothesis provides an

explation that is, on all four of the criteria for evaluating hypotheses, superior

tot the design hypothesis stated in P2].

49. Final Assessment


Do the premises, if true, provide good grounds for accepting the conclusion? If

not, explain why not.

* (P1*) OBSERVATION: Biological organisms are teleological systems.

* (P2*) EXPLANATION: The hypothesis that biological organisms are the productsof intelligent design provides an explanation for the observation made in P1*.

* (P3*) COMPARISON: No other hypothesis provides an explanation at least asgood as the one offered in P2*.

* (C1) CONCLUSION: Therefore, biological organisms are the products ofintelligent design.


24/34

50. Irreducibly Complexity

* It seems that some teleological systems are irreducibly complex. An irreduciblycomplex teleological system is one that cannot perform its function unless all of

its parts are simultaneously present and properly connected. Examples: Amousetrap. The human eye.

* Is it possible for the evolution hypothesis to account for such teleologicalsystems?

* We might wonder how evolution, working one gene at time, could start with asightless organism and evolve an organism with an eye given that an eyes lens is

useless without its retina and that an eyes retina is useless without its lens.


25/34

51. Continued

* The answer, of course, is that the lens and retina evolved together and that withenough time and enough genetic variation, many small improvements can

eventually result in a complex structure such as the human eye.

52. Continued

* Of course, there are a couple of biologists, such as Behe, who believe that there isirreducible complexity at the molecular level and that the evolution hypothesis is

unable to explain the origins of such molecular-level irreducible complexity. That

said, few biologists agree with Behe on this point. I will not, however, belabor the

point, because these advocates of intelligent design dont claim that this sort of

irreducible complexity supports the creation hypothesis.

53. Evaluating the Argument for C2

* STAGE 2: (C1) Biological organisms are the products of intelligent design.

* (P3) If biological organisms are the products of intelligent design, then Godexists.


* Do the premises (C1 and P3), if true, provide good grounds for accepting C2?

* Granting C1 for the sake of argument, should we accept P3? That is, assumingthat biological organisms are the products of intelligent design, would it follow

that God exists?


26/34

54. Does C1 support the idea

* That there was only one designer?No

*That there were no inferior precursors to the biological organisms that we findtoday?No

* That the design process didnt involve trial and error?No

* That the designers are omniscient?No

* That the designers are omnipotent?No

*That the designers are perfectly good?No

* That the designers are non-physical and exist independent of the physicaluniverse?no

* That the designers are eternal and self-caused?no

* That the designers are the creators of the physical universe?No

55. Continued

* What is the relationship between the plausibility of P3 (i.e., If biologicalorganisms are the products of intelligent design, then God exists) and the

strength of the analogy between biological organisms and Paleys watch?

* Answer: The analogy in v1 presupposes that like effects have like causestheeffects being teleological systems and the causes being intelligent designers. That

means the stronger the analogy, the[more reason we have t obelieve that the

designers of biological orgniams will be like the designers of the watch],

which are not at all God-like. Thus the stronger the analogy, the[more reason we

haveto reject P3].


27/34

56. Our Final Assessment of Stage 2


Do the premises, if true, provide good grounds for accepting the conclusion? Ifnot, explain why not.

* (C1) Biological organisms are products of intelligent design.

* (P3) If biological organisms are the products of intelligent design, then Godexists.Doesnt follow that it would be God


57. The Infinite Regress Problem for Intelligent Design

* If we can explain the existence of something as complex and as ordered as ahuman being only by positing an intelligent designer as its creator, then

presuming that the designer has to be more complex and ordered than the thing

s/he designs (and all inductive evidence points to this being the case), then we

would need an even more sophisticated/intelligent designer to explain the

existence of Our Creator, and an even more complex and ordered designer to

explain his/her creator, ad infinitum.

* If we can explain the existence of something as complex and as ordered as ahuman being without positing an intelligent designer, then presumably we can

explain the existence of human beings by a process such as evolution by natural

selection.


28/34

58. Conclusions

* The argument from design v1 (the argument by analogy) is such that[Redacted]And even if it didnt rely on a weak analogy, the argument still wouldnt support

the conclusion that the designer(s) of biological organisms is/are Godquite theopposite.

59. Continued

* Stage 1 of the argument from design v2 (the argument from best explanation) is

[Redacted], for[Redacted](i.e., COMPARISON: No other hypothesis provides

an explanation as good as the one offered in P2*) is[Redacted]. And even if the

argument in stage 1 were a good one, stage 2 of the argument is unsound, for P3(i.e., If biological organisms are the products of intelligent design, then God

exists) is incontrovertibly false. Indeed, the creation hypothesis is clearly not the

best explanation, and it would need to be for P3 to be true.


29/34

60. Continued

* In any case, many who make such arguments seem to presuppose the followingprinciple: Something that is complex and ordered can only arise as the creation

of something more complex and ordered than itself. But this leads to an infiniteregress, which is incompatible with the existence of God (a first cause). If,

instead, we deny this principle, then we should have no problem accepting the

evolution hypothesis.

61. Where We Are At

* So weve looked at one popular argument for the existence of God, and it turnedout to be a bad argument. Should we conclude, then, that God does not exist?

* Why not?

* Perhaps,[Redacted]. But rather than trying to canvass all possible arguments forthe existence of God, I suggest that we move on to consider an argument against

the existence of God: the Argument from Evil. This is our next topic.


30/34

Study Guide for Lecture 2

* (2.1) Evaluate the argument below. (a) Are there some premises that we shouldnot accept?NoIf so, state which ones and explain why we should not accept

them. (b) Do any of the premises beg the question? If so, state which ones andhow it is that they beg the question.No(C) Do the premises, if true, provide

good grounds for accepting the conclusion?YesIf not, explain why not.

* (P1) God is essentially omnipotent.

* (P2) If God isessentiallyomnipotent, then it is not logically possible forhim to do something that would render himself non-omnipotent.

* (C1) Thus, it is not logically possible for God to do something that wouldrender himself non-omnipotent. (From P1 and P2.)

* (P4) If it were logically possible for God to create a boulder that hecouldnt lift, then it would be logically possible for God to do something

that would render himself non-omnipotent.

* (C2) Therefore, it is not logically possible for God to create a boulder thathe couldnt lift. (From C1 and P4.)

* (P5) God, being omnipotent, can do all and only that which is logicallypossible.

* (C3) Therefore, God cannot create a boulder that he couldnt lift. (From C2and P5)

(2.2) (a) Provide an original example of a proposition that is logically possible. (b)

Provide an original example of a proposition that is logically impossible (that is,that is necessarily false).

Im wearing shoes right now Doug is not himself


31/34

(2.3) (a) Provide an original example of something that is a teleological system is.

Blender

(b) Provide an original example of something that is not a teleological system is.

Brick


32/34

* (2.4) Evaluate the argument below. (a) Are there some premises that we shouldnot accept? If so, state which ones and explain why we should not accept them.

We should accept all(b) Do any of the premises beg the question? If so, state

which ones and how it is that they beg the question.None beg the question(C)

Do the premises, if true, provide good grounds for accepting the conclusion? Ifnot, explain why not.Does not provide good grounds, because there is a

relevant dissimilarity biological organisms have the properties of

reproducing, and competing for survival, and having variable inheritable

traits that either enhance or diminsh their chances. Weak Argument due to

weak anaology.

* (P1) Biological organisms are like watches in that they are teleologicalsystems.


* (C1) Therefore, biological organisms have the further property of beingthe products of intelligent design.

* (2.5) Evaluate the argument below. (a) Are there some premises that we shouldnot accept? If so, state which ones and explain why we should not accept them.

Yes, P3, because evolution hypothesis which is better in simplicity, coherence,

explanatory power, and predictive power(b) Do any of the premises beg the

question? If so, state which ones and how it is that they beg the question.No(C)

Do the premises, if true, provide good grounds for accepting the conclusion? If

not, explain why not.Yes

* (P1*) OBSERVATION: Biological organisms are teleological systems.

* (P2*) EXPLANATION: The hypothesis that biological organisms are theproducts of intelligent design provides an explanation for the observation

made in P1*.


33/34

* (P3*) COMPARISON: No other hypothesis provides an explanation atleast as good as the one offered in P2*.

* (C1) CONCLUSION: Therefore, biological organisms are the products of

intelligent design.

(2.6) (a) Explain how the evolution hypothesis is simpler than the creation

hypothesis.

Simplier because it postulates a smaller amount of unknowns.

(b) Explain how the evolution hypothesis coheres better with certain knowntruths than the creation hypothesis does.

Coheres with the fact that artificial selection is able to cause dramatic changes

(c) Explain how the evolution hypothesis has greater explanatory power than the

creation hypothesis does.

It can explain things like panda ankle bone, 5 digit whale, male nipples

(d) Explain how the evolution hypothesis has greater predictive power than the

creation hypothesis does.

It predicts that we will ifnd junk dna, wont find organism that metamorphs prior to

reproduction.


34/34

(2.7) Evaluate the argument below. (a) Are there some premises that we should

not accept? If so, state which ones and explain why we should not accept them.

P3, just because there is an intelligent designers doesnt mean it has to be

god(b) Do any of the premises beg the question? If so, state which ones and how

it is that they beg the question.No(C) Do the premises, if true, provide goodgrounds for accepting the conclusion? If not, explain why not.Yes

* (C1) Biological organisms are products of intelligent design.

* (P3) If biological organisms are the products of intelligent design, thenGod exists.


(2.8) Explain the relationship between the plausibility of If biological organisms

are the products of intelligent design, then God exists and the strength of the

analogy between biological organisms and Paleys watch.

The relationship is the more plausible the anaogy the less plausible this claim is. Because if

they are analogous then we should expect their causes to be alike, but the cuase of the watch

is nothing like a od.

(2.9) Explain the infinite regress problem that arises for those who claim that we

can only explain the existence of something as complex and as ordered as a

human being by positing an intelligent designer as its creator.

!xperience tells us that the designer is alwayus more complex and organi"ed than the thing

that it designs. If accept this claim, then we must postulate that there must be some

intelligent designer that design the original intelligent designer. #d infinum.

101 - l2 - the argument from design

Documents