Let’s try this again.
In a recent post here at TSZ Elizabeth Liddle made the following statement:
What undermines the “case for design” chiefly, is that there isn’t a case for a designer.
Odd, I thought. Surely she knows better. All that time spent over at UD and never a case for a designer? Is this claim believable? I thought not.
This was later followed by yet another comment from Elizabeth:
I haven’t really taken to the “atheist” label, much although I don’t reject it – but it [the atheist label] implies that my non-belief in god or gods is something categorically different from my non-belief in unicorns or toothfairies, or in the proverbial orbiting teapot.
But it is categorically different. No one believes orbiting teapots design anything and an orbiting teapot would be an instance of design not an instance of a designer.
Given the trajectory of the original at thread I think it’s reasonable to believe that Elizabeth’s claim that there is no case for a designer should be understood as a claim that there is no case for the existence of God. I won’t even call this a transition, because I can’t detect a transition from “designer” to “god” that consists of any distinction.
Can you give me some arguments for the existence for a god of some sort?
…compared to the time when I acted as though it were true that an omipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God existed, I am no longer faced with the problem as to why bad things happen, nor how a person could possibly think, feel or act or experience after their brain had ceased to function. So I now have a more parsimonious model, which means that not only do I not have to fill my head with unnecessary non-useful beliefs, I no longer have to solve the problems that those earlier assumptions presented.
It’s not that there’s no case for a designer [God], but that now Elizabeth doesn’t have to think about what the existence of a designer [God] entails. It’s not that she did not have a model based upon her beliefs, but that now her model is “more parsimonious.”
And now for the kicker…
I know there are such arguments. I find none of them persuasive.
Directly contradicting her earlier statement.
Why would a case for the existence of God not qualify as a case for a designer?
What is the difference between these two claims: 1) there is no case for a designer, and 2) there is no case for the existence of God?
When Elizabeth asserted there was no case for a designer, did she simply mean to assert that she found no case for the existence of a designer that compelled belief?