On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:04:17 -0500 lweiger at umich.edu writes:
> Quoting andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com>:
>
> >
> > Actuyally it is worse than that. The regress really
> > applies tas an objection to the first cause argument
> > more than to the argument from design (AD).
>
> Hmm. Why doesn't it apply just as much to the AD argument? If your
> "explanation" of why the universe exists is that someone or
> something made it,
> don't you need to explain where the maker came from?
It would for at least some versions of the AD. Some of the most popular versions emphasize the necessity of a designer to account for the complexity of the universe or at least the complexity of say DNA, as apparently Flew does. But if that is the case then it would seem likely that a putative designer would be as least as complex as the things that he/she/it designed. But if we accept that, then by hypothesis it must follow that the designer in turn requires still another designer to account for its existence as a complex entity, and so on, ad infinitum. In other words, by Jove, we get ourselves into an infinite regress.
>
> -- Luke
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>