Design Counterarguments

quote:

---

Originally posted by thrombosis:
You overstate your case. There is plenty of evidence from QM that physical laws may not work and apply the same way as they do in non-quantom fashion, however you are welcome to provide the type of evidence that proves that causality is not a reality.

---

Alpha decay. There's a 50% chance over an atom's halflife that it will decay. There's no observable reason for the decay's lifespan for it to decay at a particular moment. It cannot be predicted, and is often used as a source of random numbers for high security cryptographic systems, precisely because of this fact. Given a kilogram of the same material, half of it will decay in one half-life, but if no decay at all occurs, there's no physical law being broken.Now, you can argue that just because it doesn't have a known cause that an unknown cause is excluded. However, I can argue that just because two things appear to be caused does not imply causal connection. Either way, we'd both be making unprovable assertions, as it deals with things that we have no knowledge of. This puts us back on metaphysical ground. Bear in mind that we must distinguish between a teleological cause and physical cause as well. The khalam *might* show the need for a physical cause, but not a teleological one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nialscorva:
Now, you can argue that just because it doesn't have a known cause that an unknown cause is excluded. However, I can argue that just because two things appear to be caused does not imply causal connection. Either way, we'd both be making unprovable assertions, as it deals with things that we have no knowledge of. This puts us back on metaphysical ground. Bear in mind that we must distinguish between a teleological cause and physical cause as well. The khalam *might* show the need for a physical cause, but not a teleological one.

---

1. When only unprovable assumptions are possible, then one leans on what is known. Your argument from QM is still an argument from ignorance (not yours, but all of science). With hope in a few years you will either have a great argument or further evidence of a transcendent creator.
2. Even a quantom world exists in a material realm. If it were true that the quantom world did not operate in a causal fashion-something you don't at all know to be true-it would still be operating in the material realm. The Kalam in union with relativity and Hawking/Penrose argues convincingly for all of the material world including time coming into existence from nothing.
3. The teleological cause is convincing argued from the anthropic fine tuning necessary to have life at all anywhere in the universe.Thrombolina

ThrombyHuh? Try again. Just differentiate moral evil from the category of evil? Why don't you start with defining what evil is. How do you distinguish what is evil? Where did you get this concept? Sounds pretty theistic to me. Are you a theist?No, i have no theistic urges. You're correct. Evil is a "theistic" concept that originated with Zoroastrianism- dueling dualistic concepts of Good as Ormazd (ahura-mazd) and Evil (ahriman). The argument of Evil within the design argument appropriates the theistic concept of evil and consequently reduces theism to sheer absurdity. Evil is what the theist defines as either breaking the divine commandements of the particular doctrines of the deity. In this manner I define moral evil as the privation of the proper relation between an action or its omission and the moral law.Thromby: You keep using the word evil in your definitions. You need to explain where you got this word. What in the world does it mean?You are right, i have been sloppy. There are different aspects of evil, as in "X evil" is "the privation of an X good." and the aspects are Apparent, Objective, Ontological, Physical, Real, Relative, Subjective, and etcetera. Evil is something that is unsuitable for a natural tendency or appetency, i.e. the privation of a required good.Evil has various definitions for different folks. There are two kinds of people- the noble people and the slaves and their moralities are inverse copies of one another- What the noble see as evil is weak and cowardly and common, while what the slaves think is what is harmful and independent and dangerous is evil.However, it is my personal belief that there is no objective method of formulating morality. If we follow a moral system or a religious doctrine we are pretending we cannot act otherwise, an exercise in self-deception, by denying that we have the enormous responsibility of determining our choices. I am of the belief that the individual must create their own moral code- and act authentically- make choices with the clear understanding that we are responsible for creating our perspectives, our opinions, our moral codes.Thromby:You are not being clear. While I can see why many of the things you listed would be undesirable for personal comfort, I have not seen you make any case as to why they are evil, let alone defining what evil is.ThrombosiladiusI hope what i mentioned above illuminates the topic a bit. However, i would like to hear why you think evil does not exist.~Thus Spoke Zarathustra~

Hi Zar,Arguments against ID based upon the presence of evil are not scientific, which is I think why some of the responses are seeking clarification of the term. However, your two initial premises seem sufficient to scientifically exclude ID, ie, there's no evidence for an IDer.I don't understand why you introduced evil into the discussion of ID. Do you believe evil has an objective existence outside the minds of men?--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Hi Zar,Arguments against ID based upon the presence of evil are not scientific, which is I think why some of the responses are seeking clarification of the term. However, your two initial premises seem sufficient to scientifically exclude ID, ie, there's no evidence for an IDer.

---

Ethics is not a science, yes, however, my arguments are directed against the theistic religions that appropriates ID as their sole means for proof of God's existence, albeit indirectly.

quote:

---

I don't understand why you introduced evil into the discussion of ID. Do you believe evil has an objective existence outside the minds of men?--Percy

---

I introduced evil as a theistic concept to trip the believers who give license to the ID argument and draw religious inferences from that foundation. Read my personal stand on this issue i posted above: However, it is my personal belief that there is no objective method of formulating morality. If we follow a moral system or a religious doctrine we are pretending we cannot act otherwise, an exercise in self-deception, by denying that we have the enormous responsibility of determining our choices. I am of the belief that the individual must create their own moral code- and act authentically- make choices with the clear understanding that we are responsible for creating our perspectives, our opinions, our moral codes.How's that?~Speaker 4 the death of God~

quote:

---

Originally posted by thrombosis:
1. When only unprovable assumptions are possible, then one leans on what is known. Your argument from QM is still an argument from ignorance (not yours, but all of science). With hope in a few years you will either have a great argument or further evidence of a transcendent creator.

---

So would you care to show what is known in this situation? Is causality known, or is it a presupposition? Philosopher's have been trying for years to identify a rational basis, could you enlighten us with your proof?I must take exception with your accusation of arguing from ignorance. I am pointing out holes in your argument, not presenting one of my own. I'm not presenting reasons as to why ID is invalid, I'm presenting arguments as to why arguments for it's validity fail. You are in fact appealing to ignorance by saying that because we don't know that something isn't true, we must consider it to be true.When discussing an unprovable statement, we can only deal with what is known. We *know* that quantum looks acausal with respect to everything else that is observable. To speculate otherwise requires us to talk about something that we do not have knowledge of. For all knowledge we have, quantum is acausal.My point about QM stands.

quote:

---

2. Even a quantom world exists in a material realm. If it were true that the quantom world did not operate in a causal fashion-something you don't at all know to be true-it would still be operating in the material realm. The Kalam in union with relativity and Hawking/Penrose argues convincingly for all of the material world including time coming into existence from nothing.

---

So? What's your point?It's not as clear cut as this either, Penrose was a mathematician, not a physicist, and Hawking, while amazing, isn't the final authority on the beginning of the universe. Even if there was a big bang, that doesn't mean the universe "came to be", as "coming to be" requires the presence of time before time started, which we do not have knowledge of.I see a stack of rocks in the woods. The stack obviously "came to be" at some point. Does this tell me anything about who/what created it? Not without prior knowledge.

quote:

---

3. The teleological cause is convincing argued from the anthropic fine tuning necessary to have life at all anywhere in the universe.

---

It may be convincing, but it is certainly not sound. In the spirit of not talking about what is not known, could you please show us why you think fine tuning is necessary? You make this assertion without supporting it, and I'd like to see the numbers and/or logic behind it.

Aaaahhhhh!!! Aaaaahhhhh!!!!!! Aaaahhhhhhhhhhhh!I typed a reply three times to Nialscorva and each time closed my browser by accident and lost the post.I'll get one out tomorrow. I'm too frustrated to do it again now.Thrombosis

quote:

---

Originally posted by thrombosis:
I typed a reply three times to Nialscorva and each time closed my browser by accident and lost the post.

---

God trying to tell you something? Just kidding. I look forward to your response, don't rush on my account.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nialscorva:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by thrombosis:
1. When only unprovable assumptions are possible, then one leans on what is known. Your argument from QM is still an argument from ignorance (not yours, but all of science). With hope in a few years you will either have a great argument or further evidence of a transcendent creator.
NC:
So would you care to show what is known in this situation? Is causality known, or is it a presupposition? Philosopher's have been trying for years to identify a rational basis, could you enlighten us with your proof? Throm:
Causality is well understood by natural law. There is no known exception to causality. Without causality there would be no rational world in which we could exist and discuss things in an Aristotalian logic.NC:
I must take exception with your accusation of arguing from ignorance. I am pointing out holes in your argument, not presenting one of my own. I'm not presenting reasons as to why ID is invalid, I'm presenting arguments as to why arguments for it's validity fail. You are in fact appealing to ignorance by saying that because we don't know that something isn't true, we must consider it to be true.

​

When discussing an unprovable statement, we can only deal with what is known. We *know* that quantum looks acausal with respect to everything else that is observable. To speculate otherwise requires us to talk about something that we do not have knowledge of. For all knowledge we have, quantum is acausal.

​

My point about QM stands.Throm:
I don't believe your point about QM does stand. I'll give you an example to support causality from light. We now know that light acts as both a particle and a wave. By certain manipulations, we can cause the light to act as either a particle or a wave. However, when we "blind" the light to our manipulation, it still acts the way the way it would if the causation was known. We have no idea why or how it does this. However, it does, and it is consistent. Alpha decay is an example of purely random occurances. However, it does decay. This is causality. We know that it will decay. If there is a probalistic factor that is reliable, then causality is active.Throm:
2. Even a quantom world exists in a material realm. If it were true that the quantom world did not operate in a causal fashion-something you don't at all know to be true-it would still be operating in the material realm. The Kalam in union with relativity and Hawking/Penrose argues convincingly for all of the material world including time coming into existence from nothing.Nialsy:
[i]So? What's your point?It's not as clear cut as this either, Penrose was a mathematician, not a physicist, and Hawking, while amazing, isn't the final authority on the beginning of the universe. Even if there was a big bang, that doesn't mean the universe "came to be", as "coming to be" requires the presence of time before time started, which we do not have knowledge of.[/b]Throm:
This of cource is the strength of the Kalam argument. It is a compelling and reasonable argument.Nialsy:
I see a stack of rocks in the woods. The stack obviously "came to be" at some point. Does this tell me anything about who/what created it? Not without prior knowledge.Throm:
A stack of rocks by themselves have no inference to design. Prior knowledge is not as critical as you demand. The reason for this is that there is a limit to natural causation. Intelligent causes can produce effects that unintelligent causes cannot. For example, if we were to find a structure like an Egyptian pyramid on Uranus, we would have no clue as to who put it there, however, there would be no question that it was produced by intelligence.Throm:
3. The teleological cause is convincing argued from the anthropic fine tuning necessary to have life at all anywhere in the universe.NC:
It may be convincing, but it is certainly not sound. In the spirit of not talking about what is not known, could you please show us why you think fine tuning is necessary? You make this assertion without supporting it, and I'd like to see the numbers and/or logic behind it.Throm:
1. Strong nuclear force constant:
If larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
If smaller: no elements other than hydrogen2. Weak nuclear force constant:
if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hece too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars3. Gravitational force constant:
if alrger: stars would be too hot and would burn up quickly and unevenly
if smaller: stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite, hence no heavy element production.4. Ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: insufficient chemical bonding
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding5. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would have dominated gravity, preventing galaxy, star and planet formation
if smaller: same effect6. Mass density of the universe
if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming7. Supernove eruptions
if too close: radiation would exterminate life on this planet (may yet happen)
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too infrequent: not enough heavy elements ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon (in cosmological history): not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiationThrombosiosis Myosis Delitorium

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zarathustra:
Zar:
Evil is a "theistic" concept that originated with Zoroastrianism- dueling dualistic concepts of Good as Ormazd (ahura-mazd) and Evil (ahriman). Throm:
Not quite, but an amusing anecdotal history.Zar:
The argument of Evil within the design argument appropriates the theistic concept of evil and consequently reduces theism to sheer absurdity. Evil is what the theist defines as either breaking the divine commandements of the particular doctrines of the deity. Throm:
The only absurdity here is your posts which have yet to make any internal coherent sense. No, that is not how theism defines evil. Who are you reading??? It would benefit you to define your own terms and make your own posts make sense rather than incorrectly defining other's points of view.Zar:
In this manner I define moral evil as the privation of the proper relation between an action or its omission and the moral law.Throm:
Moral law? Where did you get this idea that there is a moral law? Your talking like a theist again. Do me a favor and try to make coherent sense in your own view as you make your arguments. Your utter dependence upon theistic realities is quite disheartening and serves to reduce your arguments to absurdity.Thromby: You keep using the word evil in your definitions. You need to explain where you got this word. What in the world does it mean?Zar:
You are right, i have been sloppy. There are different aspects of evil, as in "X evil" is "the privation of an X good." and the aspects are Apparent, Objective, Ontological, Physical, Real, Relative, Subjective, and etcetera. Evil is something that is unsuitable for a natural tendency or appetency, i.e. the privation of a required good. Throm:
"Required good?" You're doing it again. You must be a theist in disguise. Why don't you just come right out confess your theism and simplify your life. It is clear that your mind cannot reason beyond the theistic paradigm. Zar:
Evil has various definitions for different folks. There are two kinds of people- the noble people and the slaves and their moralities are inverse copies of one another- What the noble see as evil is weak and cowardly and common, while what the slaves think is what is harmful and independent and dangerous is evil.

​

However, it is my personal belief that there is no objective method of formulating morality. If we follow a moral system or a religious doctrine we are pretending we cannot act otherwise, an exercise in self-deception, by denying that we have the enormous responsibility of determining our choices. I am of the belief that the individual must create their own moral code- and act authentically- make choices with the clear understanding that we are responsible for creating our perspectives, our opinions, our moral codes. Throm:
Ohhh.... Okay. There it is. So then, now that you have defined evil as subjective and non existant objectively, what was your point? Your argument has fallen apart into absurdity.Thromby:
You are not being clear. While I can see why many of the things you listed would be undesirable for personal comfort, I have not seen you make any case as to why they are evil, let alone defining what evil is.ThrombosiladiusZar:
I hope what i mentioned above illuminates the topic a bit. However, i would like to hear why you think evil does not exist.Throm:
For the same reason that a donut-hole (not the small round balls but the hole in center of a donut-you know what I mean) does not exist.Zar:
~Thus Spoke Zarathustra~Throm:
But not too wisely.Thrombosiosis Validicuterias Balonium

Thrombo:Not quite, but an amusing anecdotal history. Unsupported objection. State your reasons why 'not quite.'Thromby:The only absurdity here is your posts which have yet to make any internal coherent sense. No, that is not how theism defines evil. Zarathustra: Unsupported objection. Show me the money- state how theism defines evil.Thrombo! Who are you reading??? It would benefit you to define your own terms and make your own posts make sense rather than incorrectly defining other's points of view.It is you who are crying the sky is falling when it is not. Show me why they do not make sense instead of saying so. Take the time to show where i make bloopers, instead of championing your ignorance. Are you this shallow? Come up strong and state why.Thrombo:Moral law? Where did you get this idea that there is a moral law? Your talking like a theist again. Do me a favor and try to make coherent sense in your own view as you make your arguments. Your utter dependence upon theistic realities is quite disheartening and serves to reduce your arguments to absurdity.Ha! Attempting to belittle instead of debate sounds like your forte. Once you show how theistic realities is disheartening, then you have a case. And you haven't any leg to stand on other than jeering comments so far.Thrombo: "Required good?" You're doing it again. You must be a theist in disguise. Why don't you just come right out confess your theism and simplify your life. It is clear that your mind cannot reason beyond the theistic paradigm. You say my concept of evil is not theistic, and yet, here you say i sound like a theist. Which is it? D'oh. Both "moral law" and "required good" are deontological terms and not all deontology is theistic. Deontological ethics is an attempt at objectifying the good and evil/bad. It is quite clear to me that you cannot reason beyond the adam sandler paradigm. Was that a low blow? okay okay, how about Pauley Shore? Thrombo: Ohhh.... Okay. There it is. So then, now that you have defined evil as subjective and non existant objectively, what was your point? Your argument has fallen apart into absurdity.Remember, a part of my counterargument is aimed at the theist. the rest is for the deist. That said, not all my arguments depend on the theistic concept of evil Quite an overreach you've got!Thromby:For the same reason that a donut-hole (not the small round balls but the hole in center of a donut-you know what I mean) does not exist. Sounds like you think good exists, but not evil- as a socratic ethic: Evil is the lack of the good. Am i anywhere close to the pitcher's mound in the ballpark? The bleachers? the nosebleed seats?Throm-a-throb:But not too wisely. Thrombosiosis Validicuterias Balonium perhaps, for i know one thing, and that is i know nothing. Consequently you are nowhere close to a coherent rebuttal, much less a sniffing distance of the hotdogs outside the ballpark. Nice interjection of mocking, though. I think there's a spot open at the Apollo theatre. Run along, little chico. ~Zarathustra~

​

[This message has been edited by Zarathustra (edited 08-15-2001).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by thrombosis:
Causality is well understood by natural law. There is no known exception to causality. Without causality there would be no rational world in which we could exist and discuss things in an Aristotalian logic.

---

I just pointed out an exception to causality, that of alpha decay. The fact that this breaks Aristotalian logic is not disproof, reality takes precedent over *any* logical system, or any desire for a particular form of rationality. You are arguing the equivalent of a geocentric universe, and rejecting presented evidence purely because it doesn't fit your notion of the world. Of course, you can just redefine causality, such as...

quote:

---

Alpha decay is an example of purely random occurances. However, it does decay. This is causality. We know that it will decay. If there is a probalistic factor that is reliable, then causality is active.

---

Pure randomness is does not follow a causal pattern. Causality can only exist if A implies B, for all possible instances of conditions A. I let go of the rock, and it falls. This is causality. Alpha decay does not do this. It *might* decay at any given point, or it may not. All we can say is that it's more likely to happen within a certain time period than any other. There is no known cause, which brings me to...

quote:

---

1. Strong nuclear force constant:
2. Weak nuclear force constant:
3. Gravitational force constant:
4. Ratio of electron to proton mass
5. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
6. Mass density of the universe
7. Supernove eruptions

---

You might have just said anthropic principle. For one who admonished me so early in the debate about "speak not of that which cannot be spoken of", you do an awful lot of it. You mention that if these conditions were any different, then the universe wouldn't support life as we know it. Do you *know* that the conditions could be any different? Do you *know* that all other conditions could not result in life? Do you *know* the possibility distribution among the different configurations?The original question I posed to you was "In the spirit of not talking about what is not known, could you please show us why you think fine tuning is necessary? You make this assertion without supporting it, and I'd like to see the numbers and/or logic behind it.". I see no numbers, evidence. I see a lot of "if" statements. "If" the universe were different this way. "If" the universe were different that way. "If" pigs could fly. You are making implicit claims that the current universe is highly improbable, and you don't have the knowledge to make that judgement.Continuing in the vein of unsupported statements:

quote:

---

Even if there was a big bang, that doesn't mean the universe "came to be", as "coming to be" requires the presence of time before time started, which we do not have knowledge of.
This of cource is the strength of the Kalam argument. It is a compelling and reasonable argument.

---

You do not address the point. I am questioning causality as needed by the Kalam, and I reject that "come to be" has *any* meaning outside of time. You have not addressed this objection except to repeat the mantra of "Kalam is Kool and Kompelling". Color me unimpressed.Let me ask you a question, in the spirit of Kalam. If life looks designed, and you identify the designer as YHWH, then I would say that YHWH looks equally designed. He's highly complex, and is definately something that just couldn't happen. After all, what if he were slightly different? What if he liked banging together stars more than creating carbon based life? Seems highly improbable that any diety would create us specifically. It also seems that something like god would have to "come to be"? Who is god's designer? If he doesn't need one, then why does the universe need one? Other than your assertion that it "came to be", of course.Finally, to the marginal addressing of Intelligent Design, which is what this thread is about, according to the title:

quote:

---

I see a stack of rocks in the woods. The stack obviously "came to be" at some point. Does this tell me anything about who/what created it? Not without prior knowledge.

​

A stack of rocks by themselves have no inference to design. Prior knowledge is not as critical as you demand. The reason for this is that there is a limit to natural causation. Intelligent causes can produce effects that unintelligent causes cannot. For example, if we were to find a structure like an Egyptian pyramid on Uranus, we would have no clue as to who put it there, however, there would be no question that it was produced by intelligence.

---

So, if we find something that looks like something built by a known designer (us), it implies that there is a designer. Note that even *if* I grant you that, it doesn't tell us anything about "who" designed it. Just out of curiosity, have you heard of fairystones? These little stones certainly look designed, don't they? There's a couple areas where you can find them just sitting on the ground. There's one such park in southwestern Virginia, near where I grew up. The local legend was that it was an area where fairies lived long ago, and when they heard the news of Jesus's cruxifiction, they cried tears that turned into these crosses.Unfortunately, they're only staurolite, and are completely natural. But without knowing that, it'd certainly pass Dembski's explanatory filter. It's only due to ignorance that it can be claimed designed.You say:

quote:

---

Prior knowledge is not as critical as you demand. The reason for this is that there is a limit to natural causation.

---

But yet, all cases that you give for design, we have prior knowledge. I must ask, how do you define causality in such a way that the "natural limits" allow for a transcendental creator, but yet prevent the actions set in motion by that creator from producing complicated results?Define causality such that both Khalam and ID are possible.

For the sake of those of us trying to follow along, could someone state in simple language what the opposing positions are? Thanks!--Percy (moderator)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
For the sake of those of us trying to follow along, could someone state in simple language what the opposing positions are? Thanks!

---

I'm arguing that inferences about design cannot be made without prior and distinct knowledge of the designer. Thrombosis is arguing that it can based upon prior knowledge of a designer is suggested by the Khalam Cosmological Argument and the Anthropic Principle, and that design can be infered simply through comparing it to objects that we know are designed or not-designed. My counter is that neither are sufficient to obtain the needed information, as both are design arguments in themself, and thus beg the question. In addition, both rely on well ordered causality, which is not a fact in evidence.The argument between Zarathustra and Thrombosis is a bit more abstract. Zar seems to be arguing that under deontological systems of morality (ie. theism), that the decision procedure for design v non-design revolves around a moral choice rather than an epistemelogical one. It is the moral duty of the person to connect empirical data to the assumed deity, with the framework of anything that connects the two in the desired way being "good", and anything that doesn't being "evil". This is in conflict with a customary notion of good and evil, with the resulting design being evil and good simultaneously. It's the deontologist's dilemma, he must act in accordance with his moral code reqardless of the consequences, but yet must explain why the moral good produces evil. He must also explain why the higher good that he appeals to allows evil. It's a much more general case argument of "if there's a designer, then why did he do such a piss-poor job?". Thrombosis hasn't replied substantiatively to it, because Zar is still laying the groundwork.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
For the sake of those of us trying to follow along, could someone state in simple language what the opposing positions are? Thanks!--Percy (moderator)

---

Glad you asked- since Thromby is bent on pissing in the well instead of carrying out a fair debate, I can only speak for my positions.There are two distinct sub-arguments of design: one is a "purposive contrivance" and the other is simply "order." The former is the teleological argument (from telos = end), while the latter is the regularity or "nomological" argument (from Nomos = law).The regularity argument is the inference that the discovery of regular temporal patterns operate on a vast scale througout the known universe and are understood as simple physical laws.The teleological argument results when the parts of an entity combine to serve a purpose in the whole entity (as the stomachs of a cow) or when the entity increases the end of life/man's existence (helium layer in the atmosphere).My arguments amounted to a fine-tuning of the design argument (both versions) and its implications- especially in the "restrictions on the conclusion." given the first two premises, an example may illustrate why i find the design argument a very weak one at best for affirming sufficient proof of a diety's existence.If i found a scandalous nude photograph of a long-deceased model, i can confidently conclude what i see or have heard about the origin of photographs is that it began in the activity of the photographer, and from what i know about human beings i can infer that the photographer had a body temperature of 98.4F. But from the naked chick alone i cannot conclude that the cameraman was also a football player.The design argument assumes we are already familar with what gods are, and if our inspection of the universe suggests a designer of limited power and is indifferent to human affairs, we cannot then conclude that he is a god of infinite power concerned with human good. this is the first attack of major theism.This is not a true refutation of the design argument- rather it is an improved version, given the remote possibility that there is a deity or dieties that did create the universe. it only limits the conclusion to what we actually can infer from the phenomena.~Thus Spoke Zarathustra~