← Why Islam is True with Shaykh Hamza Karamali
Why Islam is True with Shaykh Hamza Karamali
12: Who Designed the Designer? – Why Islam is True with Shaykh Hamza Karamali
00:08:54
- Atheists object to the argument for God’s existence from design by asking the question, “Who designed the designer?” This objection is, in fact, a sound objection because the design argument in its common formulation by Christian theists is,
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:01]
A
BismillahiRrahmanir Rahim Alhamdulillahi rabbin Wasalamu ala asayyidina Muhammad wa ala alihi wasah I showed in the previous episode that modern scientific discoveries about the universe reveal that God's agency is unrestricted, that he knows everything, that he can choose anything, and that he can create anything. I showed this by giving examples of how modern science has revealed more clearly than ever before that God made the things in the universe for a purpose, and that he made the purposes in the universe dependent on a series of unimaginably intricate determinations. Now, as you watched my argument in the previous episode, you might have thought that it sounded very similar to what is famously known as as the argument for God's existence by design. Philosophers sometimes call this argument the teleological argument for God's existence. Telos is the Greek word for purpose. This argument is extremely compelling. I will, God willing, explain why it is so compelling in the next episode. In this episode, I want to examine a commonly raised objection to this argument. Atheists object to the argument by design by asking the question, who? Who designed the designer? In order to understand this objection, we have to understand the formal structure of the design argument. This argument can be formalized in several different ways. For our purposes, I will confine myself to a formalization that I think represents the way in which many Christian theists, such as the scientists at the Discovery Institute that I cited in my previous episode, make this argument today. The first premise cites modern scientific discoveries. It observes that the phenomenon of life exhibits complexity, information, and dependence on the fine tuning of physical constants. I illustrated this premise in great detail in the previous episode through the example of the human eye, the animal cell, and physical constants such as the cosmological and the gravitational constants. The second premise moves from these discoveries to infer the existence of volitional agency through a kind of inference that modern philosophers call inference to the best explanation. That's why this premise asserts that the best explanation for these phenomena is the existence of an intelligent designer. I won't dwell on what this inference is or how it works for our purposes. It's enough to simply understand that complexity, information, and dependence on the fine tuning of physical constants are evidence for intelligent design. As an aside, I want you to note that Christian theists who use the design argument use the term intelligent design, and that's what you see here in this argument. They don't use the term volitional agent that I've used previous arguments. I will, God willing, show you Shortly that this difference arises from the fact that their argument is different from the one that I am making. The third premise makes a jump to assert that this intelligent designer is God, and from this follows the final premise. Therefore, God exists. The problem with this argument is the jump from the second to the third premise. Atheists object that if we say that the design in the universe is evidence for an intelligent designer, then if that intelligent designer exists, he exhibits even greater design than the universe that he designed, and must therefore be evidence for the existence of another designer, who must in turn be evidence for the existence of another designer, and so on. We are therefore stuck in this cycle of inferences at the second premise and can never make the jump from design in the universe to the existence of God, because God, by agreement of everyone who worships him, doesn't need anything. This is what atheists mean when they counter the design argument by asking the question, who designed the designer? Now, I remarked in the previous episode that I disagree with the way that Christian theists make the design argument. This objection illustrates one reason why I disagree with them. Because this objection is in fact correct and the argument as I have just described it, the design argument, is indeed flawed. But this objection does not apply to the argument that I made in the previous episode. I argued that design is evidence for God's unrestricted agency, not his existence. I wasn't arguing for God's existence because I have already proven his existence in the second episode with the argument from Contingency, and then again in the seventh episode with the Kalam cosmological argument. Each of these arguments show that the mere existence of the universe, even without any design or purpose at all, is evidence for the existence of a necessary being. A being, in other words, who doesn't need anything. When I argued in the last episode that science reveals God's unrestricted agency, I did so having already proven that God, a necessary being, exists. That is why if an atheist objects to my argument by asking who designed the designer, his objection misses the mark completely. Because I have already shown that God, the one who designed the universe, doesn't need anything. He doesn't need to be designed. Now, if you say this to an atheist, he will most likely simply ignore everything that you say and insist on on asking, but who made God what He is? I want you to remember that I have already anticipated this objection in the third episode of this series when I explained that the reason why atheists insist on asking this question, even after seeing that the universe is evidence for the existence of a necessary being, is that Their psychological commitment to materialism prevents them from grasping the conclusion of the cosmological argument. Their materialism prevents them from understanding what a necessary being is. I explained that the cosmological argument proves that God exists and that he doesn't need anyone to make him what he is. He doesn't need a designer. Many atheists will still not let go of their materialism and despite all the evidence that I have presented, say something like, you're avoiding the question. They will say this because belief in materialism and belief in the existence of a necessary being cannot coexist. Anyone who refuses to let go of materialism will simply not grasp what a necessary being is. I anticipated this in the fourth episode in which I explained what materialism is and how the cosmological argument refutes it. And I showed that when I give this answer, I am not in fact avoiding any question at all. But what is actually happening is that the atheist, the materialist, is insisting on avoiding my answer. That is why the objection who designed the designer? Is not a valid objection to the argument that I made in the previous episode, although it is is a valid objection to the design argument, which, as I have explained, is flawed. Now, if you think back to the stunning examples of design that I gave in the previous episode, you will probably not believe what I have just said. The design argument, you'll think to yourself, still seems extremely compelling. Why is that? I will, God willing, explain that in the next episode. Wasallah Allah sayyidina Muhammad wala alihi wasah bihi wasalam Allah subhanahuat.