We are all fairly familiar with the "Watch Maker analogy" which is often invoked by Theists to support the view that the ordered complexity of life required a designer. Indeed they say, we look at a watch, or any machine and we can tell it was designed. The machine has certain criteria by which we can make a design inference.
It was put better by William Lane Craig here:
In this 2 minute video he states why he feels ID is at least viable and not necessarily a "God of the Gaps" argument. He states it is based more on the view that to make a design inference, the thing in question must fit certain design criteria and in order to show why ID is not viable we must show how the universe does not fit these criteria.
And so, we put forth the counter-question "Who designed the designer". Now the basis of this question is that, by logic this designer must be more complex than his design. This causes issue as all evidence within our universe points towards things moving from a relatively simple form to something progressively more complex.
Now the problem I've run into with the slightly more tricky theist is the view of Divine Simplicity. Most Christians and Jews hold that God is actually infinitely simple, and not complex. They state that he has no constituent parts.
As such, he would fit the criteria which we put forth.
Bit of a brick wall in the argument.
Another problem put forth by Craig-styled creationists is why the question, "Who Designed the Designer" might be invalid.
Now, an objection to this is that it is not an explanation at all. It does not add any new knowledge. But using his archeology example in that video, he states that this is a deductive argument, and therefore valid.
Now although it's pretty obvious to anyone here that what he's saying is a little bit nonsensical or at least wrong in some sense, it does come across as a strong analogy. If we find old stone tools we can deduce that they were left there by an old civilization. He's saying that we don't need an explanation of this civilization for it to be known as the best explanation. We don't need to know who they are, or where they came from.
Likewise, he's saying that if he deductively reached God as a conclusion, then it is perfectly fair as a final solution and the question "Who designed the designer" is meaningless and irrelevant.
The reason I made this thread is because, I especially have trouble articulating myself and arguing using this system of logic with theists like the Craig and the kinds he produces. I'll admit that their arguments have at least a lot more thought put into them than the common theists we see like Kent Hovind or The Banana Boys.
So, I felt that maybe we can think more about this particular argument and see how we can handle it a little better as atheists. In general, we have to admit that William Lane Craig has been winning most of his debates against atheists. His points are rarely ever touched upon properly. Now if we're ever going to be taken seriously, we need to start upgrading our arguments. Losing to people like him only hurts our position.
I We need to properly checkmate them and show them that what they're using is a bastardization of logic and reasoning.
Now, I know many of you don't like getting involved in Atheism vs Theism debates and that's ok and understandable. If you feel that this whole thread is a waste of time, or just silly, I suppose you can do with it what you wish. I would just like to maybe have more thought provoking discussions about these little issues so that we are better prepared to confront the more logically and philosophically oriented theist. We should be able to figure out what does work and what doesn't. Does anyone else think it's a worthwhile exercise?
It was put better by William Lane Craig here:
In this 2 minute video he states why he feels ID is at least viable and not necessarily a "God of the Gaps" argument. He states it is based more on the view that to make a design inference, the thing in question must fit certain design criteria and in order to show why ID is not viable we must show how the universe does not fit these criteria.
And so, we put forth the counter-question "Who designed the designer". Now the basis of this question is that, by logic this designer must be more complex than his design. This causes issue as all evidence within our universe points towards things moving from a relatively simple form to something progressively more complex.
Now the problem I've run into with the slightly more tricky theist is the view of Divine Simplicity. Most Christians and Jews hold that God is actually infinitely simple, and not complex. They state that he has no constituent parts.
As such, he would fit the criteria which we put forth.
Wikipedia said:
Bit of a brick wall in the argument.
Another problem put forth by Craig-styled creationists is why the question, "Who Designed the Designer" might be invalid.
Now, an objection to this is that it is not an explanation at all. It does not add any new knowledge. But using his archeology example in that video, he states that this is a deductive argument, and therefore valid.
Now although it's pretty obvious to anyone here that what he's saying is a little bit nonsensical or at least wrong in some sense, it does come across as a strong analogy. If we find old stone tools we can deduce that they were left there by an old civilization. He's saying that we don't need an explanation of this civilization for it to be known as the best explanation. We don't need to know who they are, or where they came from.
Likewise, he's saying that if he deductively reached God as a conclusion, then it is perfectly fair as a final solution and the question "Who designed the designer" is meaningless and irrelevant.
The reason I made this thread is because, I especially have trouble articulating myself and arguing using this system of logic with theists like the Craig and the kinds he produces. I'll admit that their arguments have at least a lot more thought put into them than the common theists we see like Kent Hovind or The Banana Boys.
So, I felt that maybe we can think more about this particular argument and see how we can handle it a little better as atheists. In general, we have to admit that William Lane Craig has been winning most of his debates against atheists. His points are rarely ever touched upon properly. Now if we're ever going to be taken seriously, we need to start upgrading our arguments. Losing to people like him only hurts our position.
I We need to properly checkmate them and show them that what they're using is a bastardization of logic and reasoning.
Now, I know many of you don't like getting involved in Atheism vs Theism debates and that's ok and understandable. If you feel that this whole thread is a waste of time, or just silly, I suppose you can do with it what you wish. I would just like to maybe have more thought provoking discussions about these little issues so that we are better prepared to confront the more logically and philosophically oriented theist. We should be able to figure out what does work and what doesn't. Does anyone else think it's a worthwhile exercise?
