Theological Argument part1
Mon, 01/21/2008 - 20:25 — admin
TEACHER: I have never claimed otherwise, Michael, and will be the first to admit that we must look elsewhere for absolute proof of the Supreme Person's existence. Nevertheless, this argument does have its merits, especially considered together with other aspects of cosmological proof. Remember that for the moment, we are working on accumulating evidence to support God's existence, and not to examine His nature. Before we summarize our conclusions, can you remember any other criticisms against the argument from design?
MICHAEL: Hume attacks it on anthropomorphic grounds. He is critical of the fact that a specific analogy is used declaring that the designer of the universe must have a human-like mind.
TEACHER: That is not necessary. If one is merely attempting to establish an intelligent cause, we need no reference to a human being or mind. It would be sufficient just to establish that design proceeds from intelligence.
I am not saying that proof for a personal Deity doesn't exist, but rather that it is not to be found solely within this argument. Therefore I am inclined to agree with Hume's criticism of this point.
MICHAEL: And what about the idea he develops out of this, namely, the idea that by arguing from effect to cause, we can assert only the existence of a cause capable of causing that particular effect, and cannot infer that the cause is capable of anything beyond that?9
TEACHER: That is also a sound criticism. If we witness a beautiful painting, we can know only that there exists an artist who is capable of producing works of that specific quality and nothing more. For all we know, the pinnacle of the artist's creativity may be expressed in that particular work. Therefore, we cannot imagine him capable of creating even greater works, nor infer characteristics or attributes which aren't expressed in the painting. Can you think of any more criticisms?
Perfection means being in tune with reality. The first thing we must understand is reality — the reality of my identity, i.e., my essence, position and function. Who am I? Just as a person does not identify himself as being the shirt that he is wearing, he also should not identify himself with the body that he is wearing.MICHAEL: Kant also expressed this notion when presenting his version of the teleological proof. His conclusion, however, is that at best this argument can establish that there is a designer or architect behind the universe-in other words, one who fashioned the ingredients into an orderly system with means leading to ends. It offers no proof of a personal, loving Supreme Being.
Science of Identity Foundation – Chris Butler Speaks
TEACHER: I have never claimed otherwise, Michael, and will be the first to admit that we must look elsewhere for absolute proof of the Supreme Person's existence. Nevertheless, this argument does have its merits, especially considered together with other aspects of cosmological proof. Remember that for the moment, we are working on accumulating evidence to support God's existence, and not to examine His nature. Before we summarize our conclusions, can you remember any other criticisms against the argument from design?
MICHAEL: Hume attacks it on anthropomorphic grounds. He is critical of the fact that a specific analogy is used declaring that the designer of the universe must have a human-like mind.
TEACHER: That is not necessary. If one is merely attempting to establish an intelligent cause, we need no reference to a human being or mind. It would be sufficient just to establish that design proceeds from intelligence.
I am not saying that proof for a personal Deity doesn't exist, but rather that it is not to be found solely within this argument. Therefore I am inclined to agree with Hume's criticism of this point.
MICHAEL: And what about the idea he develops out of this, namely, the idea that by arguing from effect to cause, we can assert only the existence of a cause capable of causing that particular effect, and cannot infer that the cause is capable of anything beyond that?9
TEACHER: That is also a sound criticism. If we witness a beautiful painting, we can know only that there exists an artist who is capable of producing works of that specific quality and nothing more. For all we know, the pinnacle of the artist's creativity may be expressed in that particular work. Therefore, we cannot imagine him capable of creating even greater works, nor infer characteristics or attributes which aren't expressed in the painting. Can you think of any more criticisms?