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?

[SallyF]

To answer the OP directly: NO

I'm not a scientist, so I'll let those better qualified explain:

It seems strange to speak of present conditions as designed when these conditions differ, sometimes radically, from those of the distant past, and are in constant transition under the evolutionary forces of mutation and natural selection. The Argument from Design is forced to assume that all parts of a complex system must always have functioned expressly as they do today. Otherwise, it would imply a designer who is always at work adjusting or fine-tuning his creations, which were presumably faulty to begin with. The theory of evolution gives a much more convincing explanation of the constantly unfolding changes observed by science, and provides a workable and testable explanation of how complexity arose from simplicity. https://www.argumentsforatheism.com/arg ... gical.html

Yes, one may accept that we need smartphone designers to design and create smartphones. The acceptance is based of evidence and logic, not belief and faith in gods, and interpretations of anonymous ethnic propaganda from the far distant past.

The same cannot be gods and universes … and mud-men their rib-women.

No matter how much obfuscatory smoke billows forth from faith communities who speak with great asseveration and use profound-sounding words like "teleological" and "ontological" and "hermeneutics" and such, the talking donkey can still be heard braying, and the Holy Ghost can still be seen fluttering down from wherever to do whatever to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

No matter HOW fancy the words get, the myth and the make-believe are STILL just myth and make-believe, and no one ever shows that THEIR version of "God" had anything to do with designing anyone's universe … or rib-woman.

(And I didn't even need to post a graphic to make my point that time )

[Jagella]

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

Complexity in and of itself is not good evidence for design. Random processes like wind and rain can result in very complex structures that are not what we normally think of as being designed. Besides, some very intelligent designs are very simple. Examples of simple design include the wheel and the ramp. Wheels and ramps are very rare in nature if they appear at all.

So is there any good evidence that the complex structures we see in nature result from the designs of an intelligent agent? If a God does exist, then he does very sloppy work. His designs are fraught with imperfections and often fail miserably to function properly. By contrast, human design is far more efficient and better at fulfilling its purpose.

Finally, such purpose seems conspicuously absent in nature. Since teleology posits purpose, it does not seem evident in nature. The Teleological for God then fails.

[Zzyzx]

.

If a God does exist, then he does very sloppy work. His designs are fraught with imperfections and often fail miserably to function properly.

An example of incompetence of a proposed 'designer':

The vast majority of (nearly all) species that ever existed have gone extinct -- almost 100% failure rate if a 'designer' attempted to produce viable individuals and species.

[benchwarmer]

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

No. Often SIMPLICITY requires design. As an engineer, I do not see something super complex and then remark "Wow, what a fantastic design!" I would probably just say "Cool, but that's pretty complex".

What really blows my mind is when something extremely simple is designed. That takes creative genius IMO.

[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.�

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.

Now apply your own analogy to the natural world, such as geology. 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.

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

[wiploc]

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

No, the teleological argument is weak.

I wanted to be a Christian until I read the teleological argument. It was so lame that became content in my atheism.

---

Note: If you want me to refute a specific version of the teleological argument that you believe in, you'll have to present that version.

I know from experience not to bring my own version to refute. You would then, quite properly, say that you aren't responsible for the lameness of the version I presented.

[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’

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.

Now apply your own analogy to the natural world, such as geology.

Just did. Try again.

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.

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.

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

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

[Divine Insight]

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

Apologetics argument for what? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

It's certainly not a valid apologetics argument for the God described in Hebrew mythology. The God of Hebrew mythology was unable to create so much as a single solitary decent human being. So if we're looking for a good designer we certainly don't want to be looking at the God of Hebrew mythology. The Flying Spaghetti Monster would be a better choice.

Also, where is there any evidence of good design?

Who thinks it was a good design to use the same organs for waste removal and reproduction?

Who thinks that hemorrhoids are a "Good Design"?

I don't see intentional intelligent design on our world.

Let's look at Christian theology,...

Their God supposedly designed humans with extra foreskin on the penis of the males and then instructed mortal humans to cut off this design mistake.

Does that sound like intelligent design to anyone?

So even if we accept the idea that the universe was intelligently designed we could actually use that information to rule out Christian theology.

Unfortunately for theists accepting the Teleological arguments doesn't make any sense. A dog-eat-dog world can hardly be said to have been intelligently designed. What is intelligent about designing animals to eat each other?

So the Teleological argument fails miserably.

A purely accidental universe that simply evolved through natural processes far better explains what we see around us.

If there was a purposeful intelligent creator who had designed the universe I would expect the universe to be far better than it is.

Why do almost all fuel sources cause pollution? Is that an intelligent design?

Why isn't all vegetation edible?

Why do any carnivores exist?

Why design horrible diseases?

Why design a reproductive system where birth defects are possible?

It seems to me that it requires quite a stretch to suggest that our world was purposefully designed.

So much for the evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Better luck next time!

[Zzyzx]

.

Why design horrible diseases?

This alone should scuttle 'intelligent design' arguments. However, those attempting to defend the idea avoid or gloss over such great defects.