[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.