Example of ‘strong’ Apologetic argument

[Zzyzx]

.
From a current thread someone maintains that the following is a strong apologetic argument. I disagree and respond:

Teleological argument assumes (or takes someone’s word) that complexity requires design

You can investigate if complexity requires design. You do not need to assume it or take anyone’s word for it.

I have done exactly that – geology > petrology > mineralogy > crystallography; eventually to study of the crystal structure of minerals that make up igneous rocks. Crystal development is related to molecular characteristics of the combination of elements involved as well as environmental conditions during formation.

I have seen absolutely NO indication of any ‘intelligent design’. However, I have encountered people attempting to inject their favorite ‘gods’ into the process – typically people who do NOT study geology, but take their ideas from theology.

Likewise, in study of sedimentary rock formation, no ‘gods’ or ‘designers’ necessary. A layman analogy would be concrete (‘artificial rock’). Mix cement, sand, aggregate, and water. Allow to harden. No designer, no gods.

Study of the real world finds no need for ‘gods’; however, worshipers seem to need to inject their favorite ‘god’ to make it seem relevant or important.

Questions for debate: Is the ‘Teleological argument’ (complexity requires design) a strong apologetics argument? WHY? HOW?

[Tcg]

Questions for debate: Is the ‘Teleological argument’ (complexity requires design) a strong apologetics argument? WHY? HOW?

Not unlike other arguments for god, it relies on special pleading. To state it very simply, the argument is that complexity requires design, except for god, he either has no designer or designed himself.

The idea of god designing himself is of course absurd, but I've seen that presented as an intended serious argument. In any case, if god needs no independent designer, nothing does. If everything needs a designer, then so does god, and his god, and his god...


Tcg

[bjs]

Likewise, in study of sedimentary rock formation, no ‘gods’ or ‘designers’ necessary. A layman analogy would be concrete (‘artificial rock’). Mix cement, sand, aggregate, and water. Allow to harden. No designer, no gods.

I find your choice of analogies very strange. You describe a design with a designer, and then declare “no designer.�

Correction: I describe a natural object that requires no ‘designer’

No, you very explicitly described mixing cement, sand, aggregate and water to create artificial rock. That is a very clear human design requiring a human agent.

If you no longer think your analogy is valid then say so. I see no point in pretending you didn’t make the analogy since it is plainly stated in your opening post.

Mixing cement, sand, aggregate and water into a specific shape and allowing to harden is a textbook example of a design. You describe a process by which an intelligent person acts to create concrete. Were there no intelligent will at work then the concrete would never be mixed.

Correction: Exactly the same process occurs in nature with sedimentary rocks. Sand, aggregate, and some cementing agent (such as calcium) are mixed in water (streams entering lakes) and exactly fit any depression into which they are deposited – then harden into conglomerate (a sedimentary rock). No ‘designer’ or ‘gods’ necessary.

This isn’t an argument. It is an assumption. You are stating a priori that there is no Designer despite signs of design. You can believe that there is no Designer, but you are doing so without (and even against) available evidence.

If we see consistent order in physical structure and substance of the earth then that suggests that an intelligent Will

Some imagine ‘an intelligent will’ where others see conglomerate. Those who favor imagination study ancient texts for ‘wisdom’ – others study the real world in search of truthful and accurate answers.

Again, you have done nothing but assume your position is correct without evidence and even in the face of contradicting evidence.

of some form was at work to create the ordered processes which geologist can now study.

Ask an Earth scientist if the physical and substance of the Earth suggests an ‘intelligent will’.

You just did. The answer is NO.

You opinion is noted. Do not pretend that this is the opinion of all Earth scientists, much less an established fact with the field of study.

It seems your own analogy favors the teleological argument instead of opposing it.

Readers will decide for themselves the merits of what is presented.

Agreed.

[SallyF]

I never see the mind and hands of "God" in sedimentary rocks.

But I do sketch out and measure my concrete path before I load the mixer.

Perhaps - seeing as how ALL versions of "God" are just too bashful, or too repentant of having created humans, to actually show themselves other than on the pages of "scripture" or in the minds of believers - if we had just a small pre-Creation sketch of the universe from one of the numerous gods who created the same universe numerous times in numerous mythologies from numerous cultures, we would know that the universe did indeed have one or more designers.

Now (to the best of my understanding) one of the countless versions of "God" did indeed inscribe a bunch of rules on some rocks once with his finger, so it's not beyond the bounds of belief that there could be a blueprint or two floating in the universe somewhere.

Perhaps we could ask Gabriel to have a bit of a rummage …?

He's been around the Universe more times than Captain Picard

[Zzyzx]

.

Likewise, in study of sedimentary rock formation, no ‘gods’ or ‘designers’ necessary. A layman analogy would be concrete (‘artificial rock’). Mix cement, sand, aggregate, and water. Allow to harden. No designer, no gods.

I find your choice of analogies very strange. You describe a design with a designer, and then declare “no designer.�

Correction: I describe a natural object that requires no ‘designer’

No, you very explicitly described mixing cement, sand, aggregate and water to create artificial rock. That is a very clear human design requiring a human agent.

Correction: I presented a discussion of crystallography, mineralogy, petrology, geology as related to igneous rock.

I used concrete as analogous to the natural processes involved in conglomerate rock.

When that seemed to be misunderstood, I clarified that it a layman’s example of sedimentary rock formation (that is easily understood by freshman geology students and some home school classes I have addressed as a guest speaker).

If you no longer think your analogy is valid then say so. I see no point in pretending you didn’t make the analogy since it is plainly stated in your opening post.

Concrete is a good analogy for conglomerate. It is not beyond the comprehension level of students in geology 101.

Mixing cement, sand, aggregate and water into a specific shape and allowing to harden is a textbook example of a design. You describe a process by which an intelligent person acts to create concrete. Were there no intelligent will at work then the concrete would never be mixed.

Correction: Exactly the same process occurs in nature with sedimentary rocks. Sand, aggregate, and some cementing agent (such as calcium) are mixed in water (streams entering lakes) and exactly fit any depression into which they are deposited – then harden into conglomerate (a sedimentary rock). No ‘designer’ or ‘gods’ necessary.

This isn’t an argument. It is an assumption. You are stating a priori that there is no Designer despite signs of design.

Correction: I do NOT state that there is no designer. I do state that no designer is necessary in production of natural Earth materials such as igneous and sedimentary rock.

Does that need further simplification?

No need for a designer

vs.

There is no designer

How difficult is it to detect a difference between those two statements?

You can believe that there is no Designer, but you are doing so without (and even against) available evidence.

Correction: 1. I do NOT state ‘there is no designer’, 2. I presented evidence from geology that crystal formation in igneous rocks and lithification / cementation of sedimentary rocks do not REQUIRE a designer.

If we see consistent order in physical structure and substance of the earth then that suggests that an intelligent Will

Some imagine ‘an intelligent will’ where others see conglomerate. Those who favor imagination study ancient texts for ‘wisdom’ – others study the real world in search of truthful and accurate answers.

Again, you have done nothing but assume your position is correct without evidence and even in the face of contradicting evidence.

What, exactly, is the contradicting evidence to my position that no designer is necessary in formation of igneous or sedimentary rocks?

of some form was at work to create the ordered processes which geologist can now study.

Ask an Earth scientist if the physical and substance of the Earth suggests an ‘intelligent will’.
You just did. The answer is NO.

You opinion is noted. Do not pretend that this is the opinion of all Earth scientists, much less an established fact with the field of study.

Having difficulty with words? I said “Ask AN Earth scientist and indicated that I am an Earth scientist (by training and career). That is NOT a claim that all agree with me or that I speak for all.

However, I have known a large number of people in the field, done research with many, have attended professional meetings, have published and reviewed research – AND I have NEVER encountered even one who claimed that what we observe, measure and test of nature requires a ‘designer’. They may exist somewhere.

[Diagoras]

If we see consistent order in physical structure and substance of the earth then that suggests that an intelligent Will of some form was at work to create the ordered processes which geologist can now study.

<bolding mine>

Or, instead of an Intelligent Will, some simple, verifiable and natural processes such as plate tectonics, weathering, crystal formation, etc are involved.

When we can test the validity of these forces through observation and find that they satisfactorily explain ‘consistent order’, there’s no need to add an external cause.

[Willum]

So how does complexity justify talking snakes and magic curse-bestowing fruit?

I am not clear on that one at all.

Moreover, from randomly oriented water molecules we get:
Rainbows.
Sophisticated images in the clouds.
Perfect spheres and circles.

That is just from randomness.

Now if we have chemicals with polarity, hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity, etc., we have the potential for amazing complexity.
Even reproduction and...
life.