[Enigmatic Harpo Marx]

Re: The design argument

OEJ--

Though I did find the Hume reinactment quite moving (I see a potential play stemming from it). I do think that what the Hume arguement puts forward acts as a double edge sword. Just as I can no longer put forward the defects of God's creations to disprove His perfection neither can you shine the light on their good side to do the opposite.

In fact it almost seems to hinder the "God exists" side of the arguement. Hume sees his brain child and says, "Therefore God must be unknowable!" I see his logic and think, "Therefore God doesn't exist!"

Something in the back of my mind keeps thinking I've missed a crucial point in all of this but I just can't put my finger on it....

[One-eyed Jack]

Re: The design argument

Indeed, EnigmanticHarpo, things look dark for True Christians who seek to prove God's existence by using the Argument from Design. Here's the snake-nest of arguments piled up against it (in case you ever need them when arguing with a Jehovah's Witless in the lobby of a Denny's Restaurant):

1. The design of creatures is not even close to perfect (cool hippy boa constrictors notwithstanding).

2. Life is not a rare and peculiar thing like Paley's singular watch. It is common as cockroaches.

3. Life and the Universe do not actually much resemble the mechanical works of a watch in any case. Theres a lot of random stuff, and a lot of sloppiness.

4. And even if the first points were valid, Hume says we cannot use them logically in an argument about God anyway.

-------------

So have the atheists won the day? Of course not! We have yet more skunks in our sack.

1: Be it proposed: Logic cannot be logically proven to be trustworthy.

1a: A proposition which relies for proof on its own premise is invalid, ie, a circular argument cannot stand. (It must sit...but not on the sofa, which is reserved for tautologies.)
1b: Using logic to prove that logic itself is trustworthy devolves to a circular argument, and therefore it cannot stand.

Therefore: We only pretend that logic is trustworthy. It's not.

Ipso Dongus, Liptum Provo

2: As Hume shows, God is incomprehensible, inscrutable, unknowable, and probably wears Dr. Scholls sandals.

3: Be it proposed: As logic is not provably trustworthy, and as God is incomprehensible, then we must consider the probability that logic does not apply to God.

4: The consequence of this is that Hume's logical arguments, when applied to God, do not stand.

Therefore: Hume's prohibition on the inadmissibility of a priori knowledge is false. We can and do find the nature of God shewn forth in the world, especially in marvelous creations like Dawn French.

Furthermore: Since logic is out the window (as you can tell if you read any evangelical Christian literature) then we find that the universe cannot be expected to be constructed logically. And we cannot expect God's creations, for example Paris Hilton, to behave logically -- which is indisputably the case.

This takes care of most of the evidence against the Theory of Divine Design, aka the Watchmaker Argument. Please put any remaining bits in a black plastic sack and leave it at the curb for trash pickup.

The whole thing leaves me confused, unsatisfied, and slightly nauseated, but since I wrote it that's my own fault, I suppose.

For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. James 3:16

~~OEJ