Paley's Design Argument for God

[2ndRateMind]

So, this idea is deceptively simple.

If I am walking on a beach, and see a stone, it is no great surprise. The stone is a common, simple object, with simple physical and chemical properties, and needs no explanation.

If I am walking on a beach, and come across a watch, then Paley thinks I should have more respect. A watch is not random, and could not have occurred by random processes. Indeed, the watch is a complex object, built with a specific purpose, to tell the time, and Paley thinks that I should thus infer and deduce from the existence of the watch I have found, the existence of a watch-designer and maker unknown to me. Seems reasonable.

By analogy, Paley then argues that the existence of the world, indeed, the universe, the most huge and complex of all machines, suggests the existence of a universe designer, and maker, commonly known as God.

So, do you think this to be a valid argument, and solid reasoning?
Or, do you think that somewhere, there is a flaw?

As before, Paley's Design Argument comprises part of the syllabus of my course of study, and, as before, all your various perspectives will be interesting and useful to me.

Best wishes, 2RM

[wiploc]

Welcome back!

[2ndRateMind]

Hi Buddy!

Thanks for the welcome. I'll talk soon.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[jgh7]

I feel that Paley's Design Argument would be much more convincing if the Universe started out as an extremely complex design. But it started out with a giant explosion of fundamental particles which sat there for billions of years, slowly converging over time and naturally shifting into more complex things. That opens up the argument for whether it really is based on an intelligent design or whether it can naturally occur given a large amount of time.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

The argument is flawed because in the analogy we have two examples which we have actually experienced; one that is clearly random and one manufactured.

But we do not have two different universes which we have actually experienced; we have only this one.

[2ndRateMind]

I feel that Paley's Design Argument would be much more convincing if the Universe started out as an extremely complex design. But it started out with a giant explosion of fundamental particles which sat there for billions of years, slowly converging over time and naturally shifting into more complex things. That opens up the argument for whether it really is based on an intelligent design or whether it can naturally occur given a large amount of time.

Well, I'm not a physicist, but there seems to be this second law of thermodynamics: entropy (disorder) increases with time. If it is true, then complexity, whether present from the outset, or, even more, developing over billions of years, and thus contradicting this second law, requires an explanation. The simplest of all explanations is merely to posit that some God contrived the universe to manifest complexity.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[wiploc]

Well, I'm not a physicist, but there seems to be this second law of thermodynamics: entropy (disorder) increases with time.

It tends to. On a macroscopic scale, this tendency is strong.

If it is true, then complexity, whether present from the outset, or, even more, developing over billions of years, and thus contradicting this second law, requires an explanation.

Entropy has increased. Nobody says you won't get some small-scale scale decreases in entropy, so long as they are more than offset by larger scale increases.

The simplest of all explanations is merely to posit that some God contrived the universe to manifest complexity.

I don't see that as an explanation at all.

And I imagine that you usually reject it yourself. When you put wet hay in the barn, and the barn burns down due to spontaneous combustion, do you think of that as an act of god that violates 2nd law? How about lightning, tornadoes, wind, waves, the Grand Canyon, sea stacks, earthquakes, and all the other common local decreases? Are those all violations of 2nd law?

They aren't. God's aren't needed to explain any of that.

If you filled the universe with people flipping coins, you'd get some amazingly long strings of heads. This doesn't in any way contradict probability theory, no more than local decreases of entropy contradicts 2nd law.