Naturalism's Design Argument Against Naturalism.

[Ariston]

Well, thank you all for your thoughts and critiques. Though I did not find the objections to be very compelling, and it still seems to me that my argument if properly understood goes through, I appreciate you all hearing me out.

@KnowtheSilence

Think about your sentence and perhaps yo can see my point,

"But they don't come from the same process. They both come from natural processes, but the processes themselves have differences that allow us to differentiate between them and apply a label to one that we can't apply to the other."

You seem to be saying that what distinguishes the two process that are in one sense the same in that they are both natural is a label. What I want to emphasize is that, if atheism were true, regardless of the label by which you distinguish them, the distinction could not be actual but is rather illusory. That is since on naturalism, if organisms are the result of nature alone, then it is not tenable to think that human thought and action is the result of anything besides nature alone. And if that is true, then the Taj Mahal, your computer, the jet engine, ect. must necessarily be explained as a result of naturalistic processes alone. However, as this is absurd, naturalistic belief is untenable. So then the question that I submit to you is this: Do you think that your responses to me, as well as your computer are merely the result of natural causation alone. If the answer is no, then you have a defeater for naturalistic belief.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

You seem to be saying that what distinguishes the two process that are in one sense the same in that they are both natural is a label.

It's not just the label, though. Seeing and hearing are both sense experiences, but you can still make distinctions between the two. The thought process of someone designing something and the process of a species being shaped by natural selection are both natural processes, but you can draw distinctions between the two. These distinctions are deeper than *just* the labels we apply.

What I want to emphasize is that, if atheism were true, regardless of the label by which you distinguish them, the distinction could not be actual but is rather illusory.

Why is the distinction illusory?

That is since on naturalism, if organisms are the result of nature alone, then it is not tenable to think that human thought and action is the result of anything besides nature alone. And if that is true, then the Taj Mahal, your computer, the jet engine, ect. must necessarily be explained as a result of naturalistic processes alone.

Right.

However, as this is absurd, naturalistic belief is untenable.

How is this absurd?

So then the question that I submit to you is this: Do you think that your responses to me, as well as your computer are merely the result of natural causation alone. If the answer is no, then you have a defeater for naturalistic belief.

Yes.

 

[KCfromNC]

If a naturalist thinks that we are solely the result of a chemical process and then a long biological process, then it so seems that on the particle level, we are reducible to energy and particles. Now if no single particle has the ability to freely choose, then no cohesion of particles has the ability to freely choose.

Quarks aren't red. Fire trucks are. By your argument, that would make the latter fact require direct intervention by the supernatural. Is this the level of interference in the natural world you're trying to sell?

 

[Gadarene]

Quarks aren't red.

*cough*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge