[PHI 2018]Design Argument Criticisms and Rebuttal

The design argument is the most empirical of all the arguments in proving God’s existence, which means it relies on experience to prove that the universe was actually created. The design argument is when it is assumed that the whole universe is a product of intelligent design and that the universe must have had an intelligent designer, which is God. This argument uses the analogy of a machine similar to the universe where both are purposeful and orderly. The premise of the whole argument can be summed up into the following; machines are both purposeful and orderly and it was made that way. The universe is also both purposeful and orderly. Therefore the universe was also probably made. The design argument’s syllogism follows this format:

1. Object A has properties f, g, h, & p.
2. Object B has properties f, g, & h.
3. Object B probably has p.

David Hume’s criticism of this argument consisted of 3 points. The first point accuses the argument of having a weak analogy. He states that in this argument, we are comparing two unlike objects that becomes the ultimate mistake of the argument. He proves this by stating that supposedly we take two living things, a dog and a bird. Both need oxygen to survive, both have blood circulating their bodies and both contain hearts. However, we cannot assume that because they both share these qualities, they are the same thing. Birds cannot bark like dogs do; and dogs cannot chirp like birds do. By comparing two somewhat similar things, we create a mistake. A bigger mistake comes when we compare two unlike objects, which in the design argument’s case, a machine and the universe.

His second point argues even if the universe promotes a sense of design, we have such limited evidence to assume that the entire universe was created by God. We only experience the earth, the solar system, and other known bodies though the universe is broader than this. Therefore, Hume argues that it must not be assumed that the universe itself is a product of intelligent design because of our limited experience of our universe.

Hume’s last criticism states that even if there is design found in the universe, it might’ve been built by a team of Gods or it might’ve been built by an inferior God due to the fact that the world has flaws that contradict God’s characteristics. In this point, he describes an inferior deity that has probably created the world and has left it due to the failure to create an unflawed universe or while creating the universe, the deity has probably died and because of this, flaws of the universe has sprung out of proportion. He also entertains the fact that it might’ve been a team of Gods that have joined together to create the universe that fit the description of God. This fatally eliminates the concept of the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent monotheistic God, which destroys the design argument’s conclusion.

There are obvious flaws that must be taken into account in Hume’s criticisms. His first point, accuses of having a weak analogy but he fails to acknowledge that any two objects even though they are duplicates of the same thing, still has differences. Suppose we have two breeds of dogs, a German Shepherd and a Golden Retriever; both of these dogs have the same parts with the same functions. Both have four legs, both bark, and both can run fast. However, we cannot conclude that they are the same because they have the differences as well. German Shepherds are known to be aggressive while Golden Retrievers have a reputation for being loving and kind. This shows that even the most similar objects have differences. Another example is when we compare two of the same objects. Theoretically, we have two copies of the same book. They are set on a table and they are the same in content, size, and mass. However, we can still conclude that there are differences with these two objects. They weren’t printed at the same time, and if they were, they weren’t made by the same person at the same time. The two books lie on the table but they are not in the same positions. What Hume has done is obviously what I’ve explained with the similar objects; he pointed out differences and ignored its similarities to conclude that the design argument has a weak analogy. Even by using two objects to create an analogy, it still shows a difference which makes it flawed and we are left to compare the same object with itself to avoid mistakes which is, unintelligent. The design argument uses an analogy to point out the inference that God is a designer. An attack on the design argument's use of analogy is worthless because we can't explain a point using the environment without the use of comparing two objects, without isolating their differences and focusing on their similarities.
In Hume’s second criticism, he argues that because of our limited experience, we must not assume that God was the one that created the entire universe because we have not experienced it fully. This doesn’t destroy the argument but it only weakens it. Hume fails to acknowledge that the design argument is an inductive argument, with the qualifier, probably. The design argument shows a strong correlation for us to assume that the universe was designed, not that we are already assuming, just as Hume is trying to point out. He ignored the word probably, in an effort to weaken the argument, though it is not enough to be struck down completely.
Hume’s last criticism states that the world is imperfect so therefore, it might’ve been an imperfect Deity that created the universe due to the flaws that it possesses. However, we must take into account that our interpretation of our environment is a product of what we obtain from our senses. We can acknowledge that at times, our senses fail us. This then means that our understanding of the world might be flawed itself. We claim that there are flaws in the universe but how can we be so sure that these flaws are actually a product of intelligent design, so intelligent that our intelligence fails to account for its perfection. Hume or any other human being does not have a right to state that there are flaws in the world because we are not omniscient to define what is perfect and what is not. If we look at the discovery of penicillin, it shows that Alexander Fleming accidentally discovered a mold, that what is known to be useless, that actually cures serious infections. His accidental discovery earned him a Nobel Prize and as well as a hero to millions. What we deem to be useless and imperfect may be the result of our shortcomings as beings with limited intelligence. Hume’s other assumption that it might be a group of Gods combining their power to create the universe is also flawed due to the fact that the creation cannot be greater than the creator. It is impossible for a group of gods to poof into existence all at the same time with varying attributes. To make the group of gods create the universe, there must be an orchestrator that makes the group of gods cooperate. This God then must have all the attributes of all these gods; otherwise, they will not cooperate under his authority. One example is when a group of people create a car. The person that initiates this plan must have knowledge on how to create the car and he must have authority over the team to have cooperation to occur. This is the same in the case of the group of gods. The orchestrator must be superior in all ways with this group of gods in order for them to be able to create the world. This ultimately destroys Hume’s assertion that it might be a team of gods that created the world. This team might’ve had an orchestrator for them to know how to create the universe, and this is God. We must also take into account that a group of gods can work in cooperation with each other to create the universe, however this logic is flawed because there must be an facilitator or a planner even though that god must have a slight advantage over those gods in order to gain respect and cooperation from the gods. Having that slight advantage establishes superiority over the gods, and this makes up God's characteristics.

I believe in God. Hume’s assertions are just mere reasons that weaken the design argument but these obviously have flaws. He pointed out that the analogy of the universe and a machine is weak and focused on its flaws whereas all analogies, even with the same objects have flaws. It just shows that in order to create a perfect unflawed analogy, we must create an analogy with the same object which doesn’t become an analogy at all. We cannot use anything else other than an analogy if we are using our environment to point out a point. His second criticism attacks on our certainty of the conclusion where the design argument is obviously an inductive argument that only shows the strength of the correlation which is a mistake in Hume’s account. With his third analysis, Hume fails to acknowledge that humans are not omniscient to define what is perfect and because of that, we cannot fully comprehend our surroundings is not a product of intelligent design. Finally, Hume doesn’t acknowledge the group of gods must have a superior to be able to cooperate and organize the framework of the universe which they must have complete respect for, otherwise there wouldn’t be any cooperation to occur in the creation of this grand project, even if God only has a slight advantage over the other gods. In conclusion, the flaws found in Hume’s criticisms are sufficient proof for me that the design argument is a convincing belief that there is really an Absolute Being that possesses superior qualities, which is God.

[PHI 2010]My Ethical System

Discerning what the ethical thing to do is based on our intuitions, consequences, and sometimes our emotions. As Hume states, choosing what is moral is purely due to emotions because reason does not motivate us into wanting the more rational choice. However, Kant advocates this by stating that our ethics is purely driven by reason alone and that it is universal, that it applies to everyone. I believe that our ethics should be based on what outweighs the other for the welfare of humanity, choosing reason over emotion. In defining what good choices are, these are the things that do not bring harm, these are beneficial, and these must be seen as neutral and favorable towards all other options available. These beneficial choices are the ones that can be good examples to society which can lead to self-growth. Forgiveness must be seen as the most favorable choice due to the imperfectness of humankind. This may mean repeated offenses may take place though it doesn’t mean that there are no consequences for such actions. These consequences must lead towards self-maturity that will lead someone to avoid that choice in the future. Justice through death is never a valid reason of choice, because it does not lead to self-maturity, rather it leads to condemnation. Consequences must never be mere conditioning. If we depend on conditioning to correct people, we are just giving an aversive stimulus to make someone illicit a response we want. This is not self-maturity where the person can choose for himself what is right or wrong, rather than just performing rehearsed responses which involve no cognition. This eliminates punishments through electric shocks or torture. If change does not occur and the person does not learn at all, the last resort would be life imprisonment where parole is present, if real change is seen. We must be able to discern real change by giving scenarios to the person where he is led to choose for himself what is right and wrong. If we are faced with two bad decisions, making this choice, which I shall define as a “sacrifice”; must be treated as a last resort, in the time of desperation but it must also be not for the wrong intentions. These choices must be made due to the problem of scarcity of our resources. A sacrifice’s benefit must also be exponential that it outweighs its disadvantages. Harm can only be justifiable if learning from the mistake is present and that it does not condemn the person from knowing his or her faults. A bad choice must always lead to a greater good, not for individual purposes but for the greater benefit of the masses. Reducing the United States’ defense budget might mean lesser jobs in the military but this choice decreases the lives harmed in war. Although this is somewhat sacrificial, reducing the budget will mean that generations to come will be saved though it gives the disadvantage of having a less defended nation. However, this nation will then be incompatible for the world that has this ethical system. War is not an ethical choice; it brings harm though it benefits the people starting the war, it is not favored by the bulk of humanity. This ethical system centered in self-preservation but in a more monumental scale, due to the fact that it is preserving a greater audience, teaching them what is acceptable, not just for individual gain. The fact that the goodness for majority’s sake is supreme in this ethical system does not mean that whatever the majority chooses is right and must be done. This means that one’s choices must be the most beneficial for humankind though it is not seen indirectly. One example of this is purchasing an eco-friendly coolant alternative for refrigerators, rather than buying Freon, which is commonly used by the masses; that will contribute to global warming. This does not show the will of the people because this and common good are two different things. People tend to have fleeting passions based on their emotions that drive them to choose wrong, harmful things. Although emotions will interfere with how we want to handle the situation, I believe that this must not be the main source for our choices. Choosing emotions over reason will mean that we are not creating a justifiable path in executing an action that may most likely not lead me to the truth.

We must also acknowledge that this does not give us freedom to do whatever we want as long as we want just like stealing for the benefit of creating a fund for scientists that can find the cures of cancer. Though it is beneficial for society, it does not fit the definition of a sacrifice. It may bring harm to others for a better good; however, creating this fund by stealing is not favored more than asking for donations. My going to college to earn a degree rather than giving my money to charity is an ethical decision because I believe that with a degree, I can create a drug that will be able to save millions of lives. This is ethical because it is for a greater good and it doesn’t bring harm. If the company cannot get donations, it must not resolve to a negative approach, rather a neutral one that does not harm. This might mean finding insight in creating new methods in research, brainstorming for new cost-free ways that will be able to contribute for this study. If presented the worse case, it must be based upon prioritization, which is where a sacrifice takes place. Someone might give up his or her life savings to support this fund, or any other neutral choice that is always available which may also involve, withholding the project for the future where resources may be able to support this new research fund. Stealing is an unnecessary choice because the project can be delayed or stopped. Dropping or delaying the research must be done because it is more beneficial that it teaches integrity and respect for others’ property, which serves as a model which is the goal of this moral system. This is different from my going to college due to the fact that my choice for college is a neutral choice and it will surely create an exponential benefit than my donation for charity will that fits the characteristics of a sacrifice. Now, supposedly a child murders his rapist father because of the abuse he has given him and states that he is morally justified because he murders him for the greater good of mankind. This is wrong because this sacrifice was done for the incorrect reason which is for individual gain and also, it is not favored by towards all the options available to him. He could have just stayed with a family friend or contacted the police to report the abuse; these are ethically right choices because they do not bring harm. If all other choices are not available, that he cannot contact the police or anyone else, he must do a sacrifice, in which he inflicts harm, such as stepping on his father’s foot. Though gives him pain, it gives the benefit of the exponential gain of escaping to report this to the police. Even if the child has siblings, and the child murders his father for his siblings’ sake as well as his, putting the father to death is not a valid choice because this does not lead to the father realizing his mistake of abusing his children; it rather condemns him from learning. A minor injury does not harm at all; condemn the father due to the fact that his judgment is unaffected. Killing the father is clearly not an option because the child must have even just a mere advantage to be able to kill his father and with that advantage, he should be at least capable of injuring him. If he cannot fight back, he has no choice to be neutral about the situation because he cannot do anything else, killing or injuring wouldn’t be an option. Let us now suppose that the government kills a rapist on death row. This is not done for personal gain and it is favorable to society. This is still not an ethical choice because though the rapist has done several offenses to numerous people, forgiveness in his case is still an open choice. This consequence may mean imprisonment but it must involve rehabilitation and therapy about his actions. This will then lead him to understand how his choices are wrong, because he brings harm to people for individual gain. In a more concrete example, if someone murders my father, several people will say that I am morally justified for wishing death upon that murderer. Though it is hard to accept the fact that the person that killed my father has a lesser consequence, I or any human being is in no position to put this person to death because it does not lead to his self-learning and justice must only be done by God alone, who is superior than any other human being in all aspects of life.

In another situation, I am being hunted down by a serial killer and I accidentally kill him. Through death from self defense, I am still not morally justified by my actions. It was done by mere coincidence but by bringing harm to an individual, I still must face the consequences of murder and I must face this with no regrets which will lead to my self-maturity in taking responsibility. Divorce is not morally justified in my ethical system because this is means sacrifice, should be reserved for the time of desperation. Usually people divorce due to disagreements between issues or preferences but they are not morally justified to separate due to the fact that there are other alternatives for it. The couple could compromise, go to therapy or even cooperate to make the marriage work. These are neutral choices that do not cause harm to the couple and all other people involved in the marriage such as children and in-laws.

In conclusion, my ethical system shows that we must strive for the greater good, which leads us to make choices that can serve as a model of self-maturation for the world, although it means discipline of not wanting the wrong, harmful things. Forgiveness is the most favorable choice we can use but consequences for wrong actions must still be present. We must give consequences that lead to individual maturity and never condemnation. When we are faced with two wrong decisions, we must choose the one that will give abundant benefit that will make us better and more dignified individuals. Even though it may mean that indulgence due to desire is usually not present, it benefits everyone more than it benefits ourselves.

[Introduction to Philosophy]What should reason play in proving God's existence?

Reason is the process where the mind formulates suggestions to infer, generalize, or analyze concepts. This should only play a partial role to prove God’s existence because relying on reason alone causes flaws in seeking the truth. We must take into account that there are things we experience that seem to contradict any possible reasoning and if we use reason for explaining these paranormal things, we are basically making an inference though there is the possibility of producing flaws in the formation of a conclusion. To prove that God does or does not exist, we will need extensive evidence which is unfortunately, found in abundance in both sides of the argument. If we establish the idea of his existence through reason, we still cannot prove the ultimate truth; so therefore, reason shouldn’t play a vital role in deciding God’s existence. We must then state, that the concept of God must be up to a person’s own conviction and faith to decide if the “greatest conceivable being” actually exists. A person’s conditioning, experiences, and personal morals should be able to distinguish how much reason plays a role in proving his existence. For me, to reason God’s existence will not mean that it is for sure that he exists; it merely means that the speaker has now convinced the listener of his existence though it is yet to be proven. No matter how strong the reasoning is when proving his existence, we do not have the absolute evidence that there is really a God. I choose faith over reason, because using reason alone means choosing faulty assumptions that people have formulated over the years which have been revised multiple times which has resulted into the different variations. I believe that faith should be enough to fill the gap that God exists because it is the only option other than reason that has an explanation about God’s existence. I am only more inclined to choose faith over reason due to the fact that reason, over the years have changed its form and theories while faith, since it began has been consistent and it has endured several generations.

1. Reason is when we infer or generalize concepts to the most convincing form.
2. We have no absolute evidence that God does or doesn’t exist.
3. Reason is made by men and has changed over the years while faith has been consistent.
Conclusion: Reason is not a certain basis of proving that does or doesn’t God exist due to the fact that it shows that we are giving a faulty human assumption due to the lack of evidence. Reason has several variations that makes it a weak basis; while faith has been consistent and it has endured over the generations.

To Game or Not to Game? A Soliloquy

To Game or Not to Game

To game, or not to game: that is the question:
Whether 'tis better for tired hands to suffer
The graphics and visual effects of greater entertainment,
Or to take arms against a mountain of Hadoukens from Ryu,
And by opposing end them? To die: to press restart;
No more; and by a restart to say we end
The exerted effort and the nearness of the thousand light seed trophy
That skill is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be practic’d. To beat the game, to restart;
To restart: perchance to perfect: ay, there's the rub;
For in that restarting what wasted time has come?
When we have released off this video game controller,
Must give us the pause button: there's the respect
That makes calamity of severe game difficulty;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of wallmasters,
The video game boss’ wrong, the careless gamer’s fault,
The pangs of taken for granted plasma grenades, the game’s glitches,
The poorly written game controls and the game’s ESRB rating
That enduring reward of the PSN trophies and XBL points,
When he himself makes his finishing combo
With just a 10% life bar? How many youtube hits would it make him?
To cheat and hack under a low rating game,
But that the dread of people laughing at lack of skill,
The undiscover'd consequences of thine hacks
No save state loads, which corrupts the game console
And makes us rather bear the difficulty of the miserable game
Than to buy a GameShark or an ActionReplay that we can cheat off
Thus Big Boss or Master Chief does make cowards of us all;
And thus the urge of hacking
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of social status,
And enterprises of great skill and dexterity
With this regard, our cheating passions has turned awry,
And that helps the action of gaming. - Soft you now!
The fair Playstation 3 hard drive! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my gaming habits remember’d.

[Random]Official PSP colors

Quote:

The PlayStation Portable (officially abbreviated PSP)[4] is a handheld game console manufactured and marketed by Sony Computer Entertainment.[5] Development of the console was first announced during E3 2003,[6] and it was unveiled on May 11, 2004 at a Sony press conference before E3 2004.[7] The system was released in Japan on December 12, 2004,[8] in North America on March 24, 2005,[9] and in the PAL region on September 1, 2005.[10]
The PlayStation Portable is the first handheld video game console to use an optical disc format, Universal Media Disc (UMD), as its primary storage media.[11][12] Other distinguishing features of the console include its large viewing screen,[13] robust multi-media capabilities,[14] and connectivity with the PlayStation 3, other PSPs, and the Internet.[15][16]

Source: Wikipedia
Colors: (In Random Order, SORRY!)Piano Black
Ceramic White
Silver
Metallic Blue
Champagne Gold
Bright Yellow
Vibrant Blue
Pearl White
Radiant Red
Deep Red
Pink
Ceramic White Slim
Mystic Silver
Mint Green
Felicia Blue
Rose Pink
Ice Silver
Spirited Green
Lavender Purple
Limited Edition PSPs
Monster Hunter 2nd G Pack(Brown)
Star Wars PSP Slim
Mobile Suit Gundam: Gundam vs. Gundam PSP
PSP Signature: Kachofugetsu
PSP Signature: Tsukimi
Spiderman Red / Simpsons Yellow
Star Ocean PSP
Metal Gear Solid Portable Ops PSP
Metal Gear Solid Portable Ops PSP with the 2nd ed.(Was never released)
Mobile Suit Gundam: Giren no Yabou - Axis no Kyoui PSP
God of War PSP
Crisis Core PSP
Custom GOW PSP
Warhammer CUSTOM-made PSP
PSP Accessories that you probably never heard of...
PSP GPS
PSP Camera
PSP TV Tuner
PSP Mic(From the talkman game)
Metal Gear Solid Eye(it was given out with MGSAcid+?)
Metal Gear Case(came with MGSPO+ LE)