The Design Argument

One of the arguments for God is the argument from design.  Technically known as the Teleological Argument coming from the Greek telos which means design.  An argument is stated premises that lead to a conclusion.  If the premises are true then the conclusion follows.  Many scientists believe the precision of the universe is persuasive evidence for a designer.  The argument takes the following form:

1. Every design had a designer
2. The universe has highly complex design
3. Therefore, the universe had a designer

Is the first premise true?  I know of nothing that is designed that didnt' have a designer.  If you were walking in the woods and came across a soda can laying on the ground would you think that the soda can was made by someone with a mind or think that natural causes created it?  Appealing to the universe (nature) as not being designed is not valid at this point since that is the very subject of the argument.  The real question is premise 2, is the universe actually designed?

How do we determine if universe is actually designed and doesn't just look designed?  First we look at things that are non-natural that appear to be designed and determine if they did or didn't have a designer.  Watches, cars. art, music, electronics, buildings, and anything else you can name that are non-natural all have designers.  When we see these things we know intuitively that there was intelligence involved in their design and we know that they are indeed designed.  In fact there is nothing in the non-natural realm that looks designed that didn't have a designer behind it.  So given that all things that are non-natural that have the appearance of design have a designer it's reasonable to say that if the universe is designed it had a designer.

So how do we know the universe is designed?  The fine-tuning of the universe for life is an extremely powerful piece of scientific evidence for the universe being designed.  I've already posted on some of the science behind this premise in a post titled Our Awesome Universe so I won't post it again.  Considering the fine-tuning in the previous post is it reasonable to say the universe is designed?  The universe is highly complex and exhibits the characteristics of design therefore it's reasonable to say the universe is designed.  I would even say that given the scientific evidence saying the universe is designed is more reasonable than saying the universe is not designed.

For further study
Video: Largest star ever discovered.  Shows just how vast our universe is.


Books


Web
The Measurability of the Universe––a Record of the Creator’s Design Reasons To Believe: The Measurability of the Universe––a Record of the Creator’s Design
The Discovery Institute

Do Christians have a bias to believe?

Do Christians just believe to cope or because they need a crutch?  And why would the skeptic be exempt from this type of coping behavior?  Couldn't it be that the skeptic is taking a skeptically position in an attempt to cope with accountability to God? 

Here's a post titled Do Christians Have a Bias to Believe? on bias and objective truth.

Introduction to ID

An interview at Apologetics315 on Intelligent Design with Casey Luskin from the Discovery Institute.

Is faith opposed to science and logic?

Is faith just wishful thinking? Do people just cling onto God as a crutch? Here's an article at Wintery Knight discussing the issue.

How much evidence is enough?

How much evidence does it take to believe in God, Jesus, or the reliability of the Bible?  Most of the time when this question is asked or implied it's really not the question that's at hand.  The question really should be what evidence does it take to believe?

Many naturalists (those who take faith that science and the natural world is all there is) will say "I want to see God appear before me" or "I want physical evidence of God".  Because of their commitment to naturalism they except no other evidence for God.  Since God is not a physical being they think they've proved their case that God doesn't exist.  The problem with this is they accept all sorts of other things about our world that are not material, physical things.  They accept love as being real but you can't touch, see, measure, or weigh love but yet no one is saying love doesn't exist.  They might point to acts people do out of love but that's not love because all those things can be done just as easily in the absence of love.  The most obvious problem with the premise that the natural world is all there is, is that it can't be proved through science or natural means yet they accept it any way.  The statement fails to hold up under it's own assertion.

I think a parallel that comes to mind are the Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson murder trials.  The evidence seems to be overwhelming in favor of a guilty verdict yet 12 jurors let them go free.  Some of the jurors said afterward that they weren't comfortable convicting without an eyewitness.  Despite a lot of very convincing evidence they were asking for the one piece of evidence they were never going to get. 

Naturalists aren't going to see God.  However, that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of very convincing evidence to support the existence of God.  They'll believe things contrary to their own worldview to avoid considering God.  They'll believe that the universe was created from nothing by nothing despite no one ever having observed this and it could never be observed (you can't observe nothing because once you observe it there isn't nothing).  They'll believe that complex things we observe in the ancient past like pyrmiads or cave drawings were created by a mind but the most complex things in the universe that appear designed aren't, like the universe itself or the human biology.

Everyone believes in things they can't see, touch, measure, or weigh but the question of God brings with it other implications.  If there is a God then we will be held accountable for what we do in this life.  There is a standard above ours and if God exists that standard is set by God and we all fall miserably short of it.  So it's not really that there isn't enough evidence for the existence of God it's more about the implications of the existence of God.

If you fall into this category have you actually looked at the evidence?  If you haven't why not?

Resources

Is ID Science?

Those who oppose Intelligent Design (ID) on the grounds that it's not science don't really understand what ID is.  Intelligent Design is not science.  For that matter though neither is naturalism.  ID and naturalism are conclusions about what the science tells us.

ID looks at the evidence and says the universe around us looks designed and everything complex thing we observe that looks designed has an intelligent designer (a mind).  The universe is highly complex therefore the universe requires an intelligent designer.  There is no "ID science", ID is a conclusion about the same scientific observations that naturalists look at.

Naturalism looks at the evidence and says the universe around us looks designed but isn't.  The universe is highly complex but was created from nothing by nothing.  Some naturalists say that ours is just one of multiple universes that are being generated at an infinite rate.  However, multi-verses can't be observed and there is no evidence to support it.

ID is not some alternative science and it's not unsupported by science despite what some naturalists claim.  It's based on sound thinking, reason, and evidence.  Below are some links and resources on ID.

Intelligent design: The next decade
PleaseConvinceMe Blog: Is Intelligent Design “Dead”?
50th Peer-Reviewed Pro-ID Scientific Paper Published
Multiverse 101
Can Science Inform Our Understanding of God?