Decent refutations of Swinburnes design argument?

[Post-Something]

Heres the argument:

(1) “So the universe is characterized by vast, allpervasive temporal order, the conformity of nature to formula, recorded in the scientific laws formulated by men.”
(2) “Now this phenomenon, like the very existence of the world, is clearly something ‘too big’ to be explained by science. (...) [F]rom the very nature of science it cannot explain the highest-level laws of all; for they are that by which it explains all other phenomena.”
(3) ”[W]e must postulate an agent of great power and knowledge who brings about through his continuous action that bodies have the same very general powers and liabilities (that the most general natural laws operate); and, once again, the simplest such agent to postulate is one of infinite power, knowledge, and freedom, i.e. God.”


It seems to me to be the strongest design argument yet. I have my own thoughts, but what does everyone else think?

[OrganisedRandomness]

Heres the argument:

(1) “So the universe is characterized by vast, allpervasive temporal order, the conformity of nature to formula, recorded in the scientific laws formulated by men.”
(2) “Now this phenomenon, like the very existence of the world, is clearly something ‘too big’ to be explained by science. (...) [F]rom the very nature of science it cannot explain the highest-level laws of all; for they are that by which it explains all other phenomena.”

Great, more teleological arguments.... he assumes that there are "highest-level laws".




(3) ”[W]e must postulate an agent of great power and knowledge who brings about through his continuous action that bodies have the same very general powers and liabilities (that the most general natural laws operate);Assumption of it being male; assumption of continuous action; assumption of it being an "agent" (whatever that is...). The last phrase basically renames the effects of bodies governed by laws as "powers".


and, once again, the simplest such agent to postulate is one of infinite power, knowledge, and freedom, i.e. God.”Why knowledge? Why power?

Theistic "arguments" are generally built on assumptions.

[Decolonize The Left]

Heres the argument:

(1) “So the universe is characterized by vast, allpervasive temporal order, the conformity of nature to formula, recorded in the scientific laws formulated by men.”

Problem: Nature does not conform to formula, rather, formula conforms and adapts to nature.

Problem: The universe is not characterized by any order, at all. In fact, it is characterized primarily by disorder - but since we are human beings, subjects whose very existence is based around the ordering of phenomena, it appears as such.


(2) “Now this phenomenon, like the very existence of the world, is clearly something ‘too big’ to be explained by science. (...) [F]rom the very nature of science it cannot explain the highest-level laws of all; for they are that by which it explains all other phenomena.”

Problem: assumes the existence of "highest-level laws." Furthermore, assumes these laws "explain all other phenomena."


(3) ”[W]e must postulate an agent of great power and knowledge who brings about through his continuous action that bodies have the same very general powers and liabilities (that the most general natural laws operate); and, once again, the simplest such agent to postulate is one of infinite power, knowledge, and freedom, i.e. God.”

Perhaps the biggest problem of all: completely unnecessary and posited. There is absolutely no reason why this "agent" is necessary by any degree.


It seems to me to be the strongest design argument yet. I have my own thoughts, but what does everyone else think?

It's a terribly weak argument. The main point to draw from this is that all religious arguments eventually fail. The only respite religion has is faith and distance from rational discussion. Religion has never been able to argue it's legitimacy, it persists through abject denial of all argumentation.

- August

[Post-Something]

Thanks for the responses so far :)


Problem: The universe is not characterized by any order, at all. In fact, it is characterized primarily by disorder - but since we are human beings, subjects whose very existence is based around the ordering of phenomena, it appears as such.

Could you expand on this? When Swinburne talks about order, he's talking about the most base level, stuff like Newtons laws etc


Problem: assumes the existence of "highest-level laws." Furthermore, assumes these laws "explain all other phenomena."

Could you expand on this as well? Are you saying that things like gravity dont exist? What do you mean when you deny the existence of these laws?


Thanks August :)

[Decolonize The Left]

Thanks for the responses so far :)

No problem - good thread.


Could you expand on this? When Swinburne talks about order, he's talking about the most base level, stuff like Newtons laws etc

Correct. Newton's laws of thermodynamics - all matter tends towards disorder (entropy). Hence the universe is not characterized by order, for if this were the case, this would 'naturally' tend to order themselves. Rather, the universe is characterized by disorder, whereby things tend to separate and distance.

Furthermore, I don't consider gravity or the laws of physics to be orderly by any means. The notion that mass attracts other mass due to a warping of the timespace continuum is not 'orderly' in my mind - just simple reality. Orderly would result from a will, a subject deciding to place things in a certain way for a certain purpose. Yet as we know from evolution by natural selection, traits are not 'selected' for a certain purpose, rather, those which are incapable of aiding in survival and reproduction die and those which help continue on.


Could you expand on this as well? Are you saying that things like gravity dont exist? What do you mean when you deny the existence of these laws?

Of course gravity exists, as do all the laws of physics.

What I am saying is that any sort of classification regarding laws - 'higher' and 'lower' laws has absolutely no bearing on reality. Instead, it is a conceptual mechanism used to help the individual make sense of the way things are.



Thanks August :)

As always, I just share what I understand.

- August

[Post-Something]

Thanks for clearing that up August. I managed to find a really good refutation of the argument on here (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-vWZrAXSAUIC&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=argument+from+regularity+swinburne&source=bl&ots=qkMrL4gtWY&sig=tTGHHOW-BUqF-b44WIOUwEEXRTo&hl=en&ei=wQ3pSp-pNdbajQfiovWeDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=argument%20from%20regularity%20swinburne&f=false) if anyones interested.

[Decolonize The Left]

Thanks for clearing that up August. I managed to find a really good refutation of the argument on here (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-vWZrAXSAUIC&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=argument+from+regularity+swinburne&source=bl&ots=qkMrL4gtWY&sig=tTGHHOW-BUqF-b44WIOUwEEXRTo&hl=en&ei=wQ3pSp-pNdbajQfiovWeDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=argument%20from%20regularity%20swinburne&f=false) if anyones interested.

The pages cut off after a few. It was interesting though.

I feel as though one fundamental issue which is being confronted here is the desire to ask why the universe is so ordered. For Swinburne's argument accepts the the universe is ordered as well as how it is ordered as such - what it demands is why is is as such, and not different.

To this question there is only one coherent answer that the theist cannot escape: there is no why. For once one states an answer to the why, one must defend this answer and inevitably one falls to relativism as all 'whys' are inconclusive. Science explains the what and the how, but not the why.

- August

[Pogue]

AQA AS Philosophy textbooks deal with this argument in great detail if you can get your hands on a copy from a lbirary or so.