These are the standard objections to argument #8 on the list provided here...
This argument is essentially the same as the design argument and contains the same flaws.
It begins with a false analogy. Hydrogen is not always “ordered” to bond with oxygen in a ratio of 2:1. For example, in certain solutions hydrogen bonds to oxygen in a ratio of 3:1. The analogy also ignores the elements that don't bond with other elements.
The next premise suggests that the components of our universe are defined by their relationship to other components and depend on them in order to be understood. This sounds like "irreducible complexity" in disguise. And it is factually incorrect. We obviously can understand parts of the whole without understanding the whole. We don't need to understand how the whole universe works to understand how stars form for example.
It is then argued that "no component part or active element can be self—sufficient or self—explanatory." This is untrue. Elements are self-sufficient, active or inactive. Hydrogen doesn't need help from other elements to be hydrogen. Elements don't rely on their relation to others for their properties. The properties are inherent. If oxygen didn't exist, hydrogen would still have the same composition and properties. And what does “self-explanatory” mean in this context? The universe won't cease to exist because the universe can't explain itself.
Parts can be self-sufficient without being the cause of our universe - their properties are explained by the laws of physics.
The premises so far seem to be attempting to show that our universe needs some explanation because it can't "explain itself" but there are thousands of possible explanations: it could be uncaused or have been here forever and so on. The proposition of “a unifying efficient cause" which is God is unsupported by the argument. And even if we didn't have an alternative explanation that doesn't mean the explanation is God unless we use the God of the Gaps argument.
The argument assumes the cause must be "an intelligent cause" but doesn't explain why. The argument previously assumed that physical laws influence how the components interact with each other, so it could equally be said that physical laws determine how the parts act.
Finally the authors assume that the “unity” of everything in a “whole” can “only be the unity of an organizing unifying idea.” But all of this apparent apparent “organising” of the universe can be explained naturally without invoking gods. It's a blind assertion to say that the apparent organising of the universe is an “idea.”
The argument states that “only an idea can hold together many different elements at once without destroying or fusing their distinctness. That is almost the definition of an idea." Actually it's nothing like the definition of an idea in any dictionary I know of. In any case, the universe can hold “many different elements at once without destroying or fusing their distinctness,” And of course it does. A heterogeneous or homogeneous mixture does exactly that.
The world may appear to be “ordered” to many people, but that doesn't mean it is. "Order" can be explained naturally.
The argument fails to show that a mind is necessary for the universe, so its conclusion is invalid.
No comments:
Post a Comment