Perfection In Design

The design argument for God's existence, despite its popularity, is as helpful as a pile of dung [1].  In actuality, one must prove that a designer exists to even demonstrate that design exists in the first place (there is still one valid proof of God's existence, though [2])!  The the fact that so many theistic/Christian apologists cling to this backwards argument testifies to their elevation of perceptions of design over legitimate reasoning, but there are still points about the philosophical concept of design that must be clarified so as to avoid misrepresentation.

Even though the design argument for God's existence is based on glaring non sequiturs, there are still asinine critiques of the very idea of theological design derived from a distorted understanding of causality.  For instance, some claim that imperfections of the universe or in humankind refute the notion of a perfect designer.  The issue of what is meant by "perfection" aside--the word is largely used in reference to some arbitrary set of subjective preferences, after all--there are some major flaws in this position.

It does not follow that every creation of a "perfect" creator must also possess perfection.  Similarly, it is not true that everything a sentient being makes must also itself be sentient.  The moment analogies like this are used, the point should become clear even to those who do not initially understand that a perfect designer does not necessitate perfect design.  An effect does not have to have all of the same properties as its cause.  There is no need for empirical examples, ultimately, as logic proves this fact on its own.

Furthermore, it does not follow from the creation of a perfect thing that the created thing will retain its perfection.  A perfect item, whatever that might mean in a particular case, could lose its status and descend into imperfection.  Although human phenomenology transcends mere matter, this is especially relevant in the case of created beings with free will, a feature that humans possess [3].  No design, no matter how initially perfect it is, is guaranteed to have a permanent perfection, and this is not difficult to prove.

The design argument for God might be philosophically worthless, but imperfections in created things do nothing to demonstrate imperfection on the part of whatever created them any more than the perception of design means design is actually present.  Although the existence of an uncaused cause is a brute fact (again, see [2]), the nature of the universe tells us little to nothing about the nature of this entity.  Anyone who looks to natural theology to settle issues about God's moral nature or intent behind creation, whether as a Christian or as a non-Christian, is searching for truths about the matter in the wrong place.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/why-design-argument-fails.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html

[3].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/refuting-assumption-about-free-will.html