Arguments against Design (General)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 13:28 (5597 days ago) @ dhw

1) It is not necessary to postulate a designer. Chance and the natural laws provide an adequate explanation. - > 2) The postulation of a designer merely replaces one mystery with another. George: "We need to know how the gods themselves evolved and acquired their powers to intervene in nature." - This was one of my earlier arguments as well. "You have to know the limits of a proposed deity, know something about it for you to be able to posit it." - > 3) George: "Since a conscious designer would be a life-form, such a hypothesis entirely undermines the theory by assuming that life already existed before life evolved." - This here I think is the biggest and largest problem with design. It begs the question. - > 4) The free-for-all of life on Earth shows no sign of the presence of any kind of designer. - You can really eliminate this one as it's covered by 1. - > 5) What form could such a designer take? We only know of the material, natural world. Any immaterial, supernatural being is pure imagination. 
> - A little extreme here, and it ties in with both 1, 2, and 3, I'd like to request a change: - What form could such a take? If it is immaterial, how could you say you "knew" anything about it? What limits would it have to have? - > Feel free to add more objections, to comment on these objections, to disagree with these objections, but please remember that they are an attempt to provide a neutral summary and I am not putting forward arguments of my own. Yet.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"