The Infinite Regress - The Poverty of the Design Inference

[WWFStern]

Theists adore presenting the argument from improbability to justify their belief in God. Generally, they argue, “The cosmos (insert any other complex natural phenomenon) are far too complex to have arisen by chance, thus they must have been intelligently designed. We call this designer God.” The problem with this “reasoning” is obvious: Any entity capable of designing something as complex as the cosmos surely is at least equally as complex. Therefore, that intelligent designer also must have been designed (the design inference only is logically permissible if applied uniformly). And, surely, the intelligent designer’s designer also must have been designed, by a Super intelligent designer. This reasoning dooms us to an infinite regress. Theists may presume to argue that the intelligent designer always has existed, or designed itself. In that case, I ask for hard, scientific evidence to support such an assertion. How could we, the mere creations of a designer, presume to know about that designer’s origin? The only way I can imagine would be through revelation, such as the revealed Truth of Scripture. But no serious scientist will be convinced by knowledge by revelation, if only because the Bible is full of gross inconsistencies, scientific impossibilities and historical improbabilities [Not to mention the fact that the Bible was written by many authors, with their own agendas, which then was filtered through rewriters and powers of the day.] Saying “God always has existed” or “God created himself” explains nothing, but instead offers a permanently inaccessible black box. Positing God simply replaces one mystery (the origin of the cosmos) with an even more baffling mystery (the origin of the designer, the origin of the designer’s designer, ad infinitum). Citing God does not explain a thing. The design hypothesis is a path to infinite regress – a path that has no answers.

 

[Chalnoth]

Theists may presume to argue that the intelligent designer always has existed, or designed itself.

At this point I would merely say that the universe may have always existed, or designed itself. In the context of eternal inflation, the universe as a whole is undergoing inflation continuously, with local bubbles like our own popping in and out of existence all the time.

In the context of a quantum fluctuation or brane collision starting off our universe, the universe would have, in effect, created itself.

So if the theist is going to use the idea that their god doesn't need to be designed, then I can use that same argument to say that the universe doesn't need to be designed. And furthermore, I can actually go one step further and provide a number of plausible processes that could have started off our own local bubble.

 

[RightWingGirl]

The problem with this “reasoning” is obvious: Any entity capable of designing something as complex as the cosmos surely is at least equally as complex. Therefore, that intelligent designer also must have been designed (the design inference only is logically permissible if applied uniformly). .

If you suppose a God, than you are supposing the supernatural exists. In which case, why do you have a problem with an eternal God?

Psalm 90:2
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

I Timothy 1:17
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

 

[nvxplorer]

If you suppose a God, than you are supposing the supernatural exists. In which case, why do you have a problem with an eternal God?

Define supernatural.

 

[Cannonflare]

define higher power while your at it.

 

[Chalnoth]

If you suppose a God, than you are supposing the supernatural exists. In which case, why do you have a problem with an eternal God?

The original post is a response to the argument that the universe is too complex and must therefore have been designed. The original post shows that this is not a valid argument, as then God must have been designed. And if you allow for the lack of a cause for God, you have to allow for the possibility of a lack of a cause for the universe.

The original post does not, then, refuture God. It just refutes a particular argument that is attempting to prove the existence of God. This doesn't say that God doesn't exist, just that the argument is invalid.

 

[AV1611VET]

Define supernatural.

Above and beyond the natural.

 

[RightWingGirl]

The original post is a response to the argument that the universe is too complex and must therefore have been designed. The original post shows that this is not a valid argument, as then God must have been designed. And if you allow for the lack of a cause for God, you have to allow for the possibility of a lack of a cause for the universe.

The original post does not, then, refuture God. It just refutes a particular argument that is attempting to prove the existence of God. This doesn't say that God doesn't exist, just that the argument is invalid.

The universe is completely physical, therefore within the realm of science--God is not. The universe has, a point of origin, God does not.





Supernatural---of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. 2.of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

 

[AV1611VET]

define higher power while your at it.

That which brings about an effect, yet is untraceable.

 

[Cannonflare]

So airplains are supernatural to boats.

 

[nvxplorer]

Above and beyond the natural.

Being part of the natural, anything above and beyond would escape our detection. Therefore, claiming that something exists that we cannot detect is useless.

 

[Chalnoth]

The universe is completely physical, therefore within the realm of science--God is not. The universe has, a point of origin, God does not.

Literature describing the Christian God did not appear until sometime around 500 BCE, when the Torah was organized into a single work (many of the stories in the Torah existed previously, but were written with different characters and attributed to different supernatural entities).

In the context of eternal inflation, the universe might well be eternal.

Therefore I could say, with some evidence to back me up, that God has a point of origin, but the universe does not.

 

[AV1611VET]

So airplains are supernatural to boats.

Yes --- as an airplane is to a boat, the supernatural is to the natural.

 

[AV1611VET]

Literature describing the Christian God did not appear until sometime around 500 BCE, when the Torah was organized into a single work (many of the stories in the Torah existed previously, but were written with different characters and attributed to different supernatural entities).

In the context of eternal inflation, the universe might well be eternal.

Therefore I could say, with some evidence to back me up, that God has a point of origin, but the universe does not.

This is why God is not confined to the literary world.

 

[Chalnoth]

This is why God is not confined to the literary world.

Naturally. But I'm attempting to illustrate the futility of the argument. Can you give me any reason why what I said was wrong other than the Bible?

 

[RightWingGirl]

Literature describing the Christian God did not appear until sometime around 500 BCE, when the Torah was organized into a single work


Therefore I could say, with some evidence to back me up, that God has a point of origin, but the universe does not.

Only if you asume that
1.there is no God, and
2. The Torah was written around 500 BC.

Both of which I disagree with.

God is a being, not something that was invented around 500 B.C. Therefore, being God, He has no point of origin.

 

[AV1611VET]

Being part of the natural, anything above and beyond would escape our detection. Therefore, claiming that something exists that we cannot detect is useless.

What if It wasn't "part of the natural" --- i.e. transcendent?

 

[Chalnoth]

Only if you asume that
1.there is no God, and
2. The Torah was written around 500 BC.

There is no reason to assume either one. There is evidence for both. But this is somewhat off-topic, so I'd rather not digress here.

God is a being, not something that was invented around 500 B.C. Therefore, being God, He has no point of origin.

Well, I am a being and not something that was invented around 26 years ago. Therefore, being me, I have no point of origin.

Please understand that I'm not attempting right here to say whether or not there is a God, merely that these arguments are very poor arguments. The fact that I can substitute myself for God in your last statement there is a testament to the fact that that isn't a very good argument. You're going to have to do a lot better than that if you want to prove the existence of God.

 

[Chalnoth]

What if It wasn't "part of the natural" --- i.e. transcendent?

What if the nature of reality doesn't require it to be created, just as the nature of God doesn't require God to be created?

 

[AV1611VET]

Naturally. But I'm attempting to illustrate the futility of the argument. Can you give me any reason why what I said was wrong other than the Bible?

Look at it this way: everything He did --- at the time --- was outside of the Bible (with the exception of fulfillment of prophecy). It didn't become part of the Bible until it was divinely inspired and written down.

For instance, when Jesus walked on water, it was done ex Scriptura, but when He arose from the grave, it was fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.

See the difference?