Arguments against Design (General)

by dhw, Friday, July 31, 2009, 12:01 (5406 days ago) @ xeno6696

1) It is not necessary to postulate a designer. Chance and the natural laws provide an adequate explanation.
4) The free-for-all of life on Earth shows no sign of the presence of any kind of designer. - Matt thinks that 4) is covered by 1).
You're right in a way, but I took 1) mainly as a scientific objection, and 4) more as a history of life, both animal and human. Many monotheists, for instance, believe that their form of designer is interested in human affairs and pray to him. That has nothing to do with explanations. - 5) What form could such a designer take? We only know of the material, natural world. Any immaterial, supernatural being is pure imagination. - Matt: A little extreme here. - Please remember, I'm just summarizing. John Clinch used the words "ridiculous" and "preposterous" and "mumbo-jumbo", and George over the months has used a vast variety of colourful synonyms! - You would like to change the rest of 5) to: "If it is immaterial, how could you say you "knew" anything about it? What limits would it have to have?" - I don't know why you are so keen on "limits". Most monotheists are happy to believe that their designer is infinite and eternal. And they will tell you that they know lots and lots about him. However, your questions provide more talking points than my statements, and I hope we shall get round to discussing them in due course. - (I'm having difficulty matching the speed of all these posts, but I hope to catch up eventually!)