Are Design Arguments Convincing?
Statement of Intent: I will be showing that design arguments are not convincing in showing the existence
of God. I will show that there is no actual design from spatial order through: spatial disorder, evolution and
then show there is no evidence of finetuning either through the possibility of the multiverse. Lastly, even if
there is design there is no evidence for a designer as shown through occams razor and more crucially the
fact that the universe is a unique case.
RICE 1:
R: There isn’t evidence of design due to Spatial Disorder. Design Arguments appeals to regularities of
spatial order eg how parts are organised to serve a purpose however that is not the case for the whole
universe. The universe creates a great deal of spatial disorder, space which no purpose. Why should we
consider the order of the universe in order to determine that there is a designer which is God? Surely you
can consider the disorder of the universe and then no design deduce there is no designer and therefore
no God? Spatial Disorder points towards to idea that there isn’t design.
I: The interference from the organisations of parts for a purpose to a designer is correct even if the watch
was to break or some part didn’t contribute to the purpose. Imagine if you saw a broken watch on the floor
you would still deduce that it was designed. Therefore likewise spatial disorders (imperfections and
irregularities in nature) does not stop the interference that there is design. It isn’t about whether there is
more spatial order or disorder, some disorder does no negate the fact that overall there is intention of
design.
C: A much stronger evident of no design is Evolution by natural selection - is it actually designed or does it
seem like it’s designed? The long and laborious process of evolution produces the appearance of design
but rather this appearance can be explained through science and therefore we won’t need a designer.
Evolution explains ‘design’ without a designer. Evolution explains why there is the appearance of design.
Furthermore evolution accommodates quite well with the spatial disorder objection in which it explains
much better why some parts don’t serve a purpose as it is a span of vast trail and error with random
genetic mutations.
E: Therefore from the perspective of spatial order there is no design just the appearance of design and
therefore we don’t need a designer.
I: What about explaining temporal order? Appealing to Temporal Order is more beneficial as such laws of
nature are universal therefore there's no issue of temporal disorder (which is cool more strength in the
idea that there is design). More crucially we have yet to scientifically account for the laws of nature and its
regularity (we can’t use science to explain fundamentals of science we need to appeal something beyond
science) eg evolution as a law of nature needs to explains itself. Therefore we need something outside of
science to explain temporal order whereas for spatial order we could explain why there was design.
C: To say that scientific explanation can never explain the laws of nature is really naïve and pessimistic,
science can very plausibly develop explain the laws of the nature in the future and therefore should not be
eliminated as an explanation and therefore we are left in the same issue. This isn’t the strongest response
but the following issues show it is really strong to just leave the laws of nature as they are.
In terms of science because we are YET to explain them but there is still a possibility to explain it, in
comparison with God the potential to explain God’s existence is completely vague. Not only this, If we say
that God designed it and he doesn't need an explanation then why can’t the same be for laws of nature -
just exist. and say we can’t explain it. There is no real reason to invoke a designer when we can just end it
with scientific laws.
Are Design Arguments Convincing? 1
Statement of Intent: I will be showing that design arguments are not convincing in showing the existence
of God. I will show that there is no actual design from spatial order through: spatial disorder, evolution and
then show there is no evidence of finetuning either through the possibility of the multiverse. Lastly, even if
there is design there is no evidence for a designer as shown through occams razor and more crucially the
fact that the universe is a unique case.
RICE 1:
R: There isn’t evidence of design due to Spatial Disorder. Design Arguments appeals to regularities of
spatial order eg how parts are organised to serve a purpose however that is not the case for the whole
universe. The universe creates a great deal of spatial disorder, space which no purpose. Why should we
consider the order of the universe in order to determine that there is a designer which is God? Surely you
can consider the disorder of the universe and then no design deduce there is no designer and therefore
no God? Spatial Disorder points towards to idea that there isn’t design.
I: The interference from the organisations of parts for a purpose to a designer is correct even if the watch
was to break or some part didn’t contribute to the purpose. Imagine if you saw a broken watch on the floor
you would still deduce that it was designed. Therefore likewise spatial disorders (imperfections and
irregularities in nature) does not stop the interference that there is design. It isn’t about whether there is
more spatial order or disorder, some disorder does no negate the fact that overall there is intention of
design.
C: A much stronger evident of no design is Evolution by natural selection - is it actually designed or does it
seem like it’s designed? The long and laborious process of evolution produces the appearance of design
but rather this appearance can be explained through science and therefore we won’t need a designer.
Evolution explains ‘design’ without a designer. Evolution explains why there is the appearance of design.
Furthermore evolution accommodates quite well with the spatial disorder objection in which it explains
much better why some parts don’t serve a purpose as it is a span of vast trail and error with random
genetic mutations.
E: Therefore from the perspective of spatial order there is no design just the appearance of design and
therefore we don’t need a designer.
I: What about explaining temporal order? Appealing to Temporal Order is more beneficial as such laws of
nature are universal therefore there's no issue of temporal disorder (which is cool more strength in the
idea that there is design). More crucially we have yet to scientifically account for the laws of nature and its
regularity (we can’t use science to explain fundamentals of science we need to appeal something beyond
science) eg evolution as a law of nature needs to explains itself. Therefore we need something outside of
science to explain temporal order whereas for spatial order we could explain why there was design.
C: To say that scientific explanation can never explain the laws of nature is really naïve and pessimistic,
science can very plausibly develop explain the laws of the nature in the future and therefore should not be
eliminated as an explanation and therefore we are left in the same issue. This isn’t the strongest response
but the following issues show it is really strong to just leave the laws of nature as they are.
In terms of science because we are YET to explain them but there is still a possibility to explain it, in
comparison with God the potential to explain God’s existence is completely vague. Not only this, If we say
that God designed it and he doesn't need an explanation then why can’t the same be for laws of nature -
just exist. and say we can’t explain it. There is no real reason to invoke a designer when we can just end it
with scientific laws.
Are Design Arguments Convincing? 1
