by gubberningbody 8 Replies latest jw friends
I remember reading an Awake magazine article from 1946 that tried to explain Dinosaurs and other carnivorous animals that left me more than a little flat.
Certainly the existence of design would argue for a designer, but not necessarily the morality of said designer. Now I know some would argue that my conception of morality is flawed and that of the designer so much superior, yet I have yet to hear or read of any narrative which I could back with my heart or head.
Matt McCormick says:
Here’s a problem for design arguments. The best examples of design that we know that might allow us to develop a teleological argument for God are instances where we designed and created artifacts. Then we can identify the properties that are present in those artifacts in virtue our our intelligent design. To the extent that the universe possesses those properties, we can then argue that the universe was designed as well. Any properties that we would find in the universe that might suggest that it as an artifact will be properties that we have observed in artifacts that we have created. But the properties that we find in our artifacts that indicate that they were created all directly or indirectly reveal our limitations, our inabilities, and other finite aspects of our creation. So the properties indicative of creation that we might find in the universe will also point to limitations, inabilities, and finite aspects of the creator of the universe.
That is, our best examples of artifact creation are anthropomorphic—they reflect our limited natures. So if we find features in the universe that harken to human creation, at best, they will suggest an anthropomorphic, non-divine creator. But if God really does exist, then the universe was not created by a limited, unable, finite being, and the markers of intelligent design in it will not resemble our own. If an infinitely powerful and intelligent being created the universe, then results of its creative act will not resemble the results of our finite efforts. So pointing to anthropomorphic design features in the universe actually suggests that God, a divine being who would be capable of much more, was not responsible. And if God did not create the universe, that suggests that God does not exist.
It’s a bit like the old Groucho Marx line, “I wouldn’t want to be a member of any club who would have me as a member.” If the design features in the universe are ones that we can recognize from our perspective, then the being responsible must not be God. God wouldn’t do such shoddy work that we’d be able to see the seams, nails, and construction evidence. So if we can see the evidence of construction, then God wasn’t the one who did the job. Furthermore, it’s an all or nothing gig for God—either he created the universe, or there is no God. There are no in between alternatives. So if we can see design in the universe, then there is no God.
More:
As long as we only consider a single God hypothesis, then it would seem that the designer argument gives us substantial support in its favor.But if there is an infinite number of possible gods who might have made this universe for reasons that are unknown to us, and we settle on believing that a particular one—the Christian God, for instance—must be THE one that did it to the exclusion of all the others, what are the odds that we settled on the right God? Aren’t the odds that it was this God rather than one of the infinitely many others astronomically small?Then how is it by the fine tuning argument that the God hypothesis is preferable to an atheistic hypothesis?We’re left with a stalemate.As long as we’re giving due consideration to all of the possibilities, we won’t be able to choose from among all the options without revealing some presumption or prejudice.So the fine tuning argument leaves us back at square one for deciding on the origins of the universe.
"Perhaps an infinitely good being would wish that suffering unfold in the world exactly as it does in ours. . . It is profoundly difficult to see how it could be that God’s goodness resembles in any respect the real, concrete, and best examples of goodness that we see among human beings. It is so difficult, in fact, that there is an enormous burden of proof upon the believer to explain how it is that “divine goodness” that in every regard resembles what we would ordinarily call neglect, indifference, criminal culpability, cruelty, hatred, and evil can be goodness at all. It is also obvious that the confidence that believers frequently have about God’s goodness is completely unwarranted. At the very best, the reasonable believer ought to have a great deal of skepticism and caution about the claim that God is good."
http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/double-standard-of-gods-goodness.html
hey leaving i sent u a little hello in your inbox
There's a saying that says you can be rich with another's money, but not with their wisdom. In parsing that bit it seems that he's making an argument from ignorance which is a great game to play if someone will play it with you.
On the "good" or "bad" judgment, I claim my right like Abraham to challenge the creator : "Is the God of all the earth not going to do what is right?"
damm gubberning.......leave 1946 alone already!!......that aint even on the cd.........that is old lite doncha know?!?!?.....keep up boy........oompa
Oompa,
Good point.
You know you're an Old School Apostate if...................a "1946 Awake" got you bent out of shape.
FTW!
Heh, heh... Well as an atheist who approached this from a skeptical but hopeful eye I thought I should find what I could find before I got involved. Of course my 1, 2, 3 was simply:
1. Is superintelligence a necessary factor in the ontology of this universe?
2. What manner of communication was or is there with this uber that I can validate to any degree?
3. In what way if any do humans and their social entities have use in the evolution of this over time?
4. What permanence if any is there to the self?
I cherry-picked as best I could while trying not to fool myself in the process, but it seems that I misjudged the degree of openness that was allowable.
Now I feel I have to go this more or less alone.
