|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 4, 2015 8:32:55 GMT 5
The argument from poor design, also known as the dysteleological argument, is an argument against the existence of a creator God based on the following reasoning: 1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design. 2. Organisms have features that are suboptimal. 3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. The argument is structured as a basic modus tollens: if "creation" contains many defects, then design is not a plausible theory for the origin of our existence. It is most commonly used in a weaker way, however: not with the aim of disproving the existence of God, but rather as a reductio ad absurdum of the well-known argument from design, which runs as follows: 1. Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance. 2. Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent creator. 3. This creator is God. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_designHere is one example: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oZWacjmYm8 |
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 9, 2015 11:30:28 GMT 5
This argument does make the assumption that the creation of a perfect being would be perfect, or if not perfect, at the very least efficient and rational. Whether this assumption is true is up for debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 9, 2015 19:29:43 GMT 5
Not sure about this one. "Poor design" is very subjective. One could argue that God wanted to allow evolution (why exactly is not logical for me, but many theists accept evolution) and progress is simply impossible without "flawed" organisms. Therefore, for a theistic evolutionist, the apparently suboptimal lifeforms should make sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 11, 2015 9:39:50 GMT 5
creature386What if it was used as an argument against creationism rather than an argument against god?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 11, 2015 18:53:32 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 11, 2015 21:37:01 GMT 5
Damn, and I thought the YEC movement was only a serious problem in North America. Do they teach evolution in German high schools? Anyway, someone should tell him that the environment is not a constant. What is useful in one habitat could be a burden in another.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 11, 2015 21:47:54 GMT 5
Damn, and I thought the YEC movement was only a serious problem in North America. To be fair, I don't know for sure if this forum is serous, but I assume so. They wouldn't put so much effort into satire. Anyway, idiots exist everywhere. Do they teach evolution in German high schools? Each state has its own education system, so I can't tell, but where I live they do, but very lately (in 12th grade or so). Either way, the people on that board lack so much common sense* that eduction doesn't help. *They believe in a flat Earth, they deny the existence of Australia, they don't view women are humans and nearly everything is a sin for them (source for the latter: carnivoraforum.com/single/?p=8463535&t=9616383 ). |
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 11, 2015 21:53:46 GMT 5
*They believe in a flat Earth, they deny the existence of Australia, they don't view women are humans and nearly everything is a sin for them. That is... extraordinary. And I thought that the nuts up here in North America who threaten teachers that present evolution and carry "God hates fags" signs everywhere were awful enough. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 11, 2015 22:18:15 GMT 5
Let's now get back on topic, we may open a creationist bashing thread later.
BTW, I now edited my comment and fixed the one mistake that made one part of the sentence (the one referring to women) hard to understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jul 15, 2015 16:16:14 GMT 5
If someone tries to explain the suboptimal designs in organisms with the fall of man, I think you could simply counter this by stating that an alternative is evolution, which not only explains the aforementioned fact perfectly, but likewise has an explanation that is miles more likely.
Currently, I think I'm fine with this argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 15, 2015 18:35:11 GMT 5
I found this amusing: rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_mistakes_made_by_GodAs for the argument itself, seeing how excessively overused the "The nature is so beautiful, so perfect, so full with awe inspiring masterpieces, so complex [the human eye is cited like a hundred times as an example], how can people believe in godless random evolution?" argument is, the argument of poor design is probably at least sufficient to destroy one of the favorite creationist's argument. Even though I still find it insufficient to destroy creationism as a whole, as "Falldidit" may be unlikely from an objective point of view, but creationists won't get why it is unlikely if you tell them. My counterargument would be the lack of morality in some cases where "Falldidit" could be applied, such as birth defects. In fact, even some creationists (but not all) realized that "Falldidit" can't explain everything, so they resort to "Satandidit" in such cases.  EDIT: Wow, creationists even use the Fall to explain the observed evidence for evolution (mutations) under the premise that mutations are always negative: answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/mutations/ |
|
