Let’s try this again.<\/p>\n
In a recent post here at TSZ Elizabeth Liddle made the following statement:<\/p>\n
What undermines the \u201ccase for design\u201d chiefly, is that there isn\u2019t a case for a designer.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
HERE<\/a><\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This was later followed by yet another comment from Elizabeth:<\/p>\n
I haven\u2019t really taken to the \u201catheist\u201d label, much although I don\u2019t reject it \u2013 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
HERE<\/a><\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Given the trajectory of the original at thread I think it’s reasonable to believe that Elizabeth\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
Elizabeth Liddle:<\/p>\n
Can you give me some arguments for the existence for a god of some sort?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
HERE<\/a><\/p>\n
Elizabeth Liddle:<\/p>\n
\u2026compared 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
HERE<\/a><\/p>\n
It\u2019s not that there\u2019s no case for a designer [God], but that now Elizabeth doesn\u2019t have to think about what the existence of a designer [God] entails. It\u2019s not that she did not have a model based upon her beliefs, but that now her model is \u201cmore parsimonious.\u201d<\/p>\n
And now for the kicker\u2026<\/p>\n
Elizabeth Liddle:<\/p>\n
I know there are such arguments. I find none of them persuasive.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
HERE<\/a><\/p>\n
Directly contradicting her earlier statement.<\/p>\n
Why would a case for the existence of God not qualify as a case for a designer?<\/p>\n
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?<\/p>\n
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?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Let’s try this again. In a recent post here at TSZ Elizabeth Liddle made the following statement: What undermines the \u201ccase for design\u201d chiefly, is that there isn\u2019t a case for a designer. HERE Odd, I thought. Surely she knows … Continue reading