Q&A: The Argument from Design
The Argument from Design
Question
I’d like to start by saying that I bought the Rabbi’s trilogy, and I very, very much enjoyed reading it.
Thank you very much, Rabbi, for the important points you raise.
One question I didn’t understand: according to the argument from design, reason tells us that every complex thing has a cause, and that cause is God.
If so, what is the cause of God?
I understand that this could create an infinite regress, but what prevents us from not stopping the chain at God, but rather at man, and saying that he is the one whose existence cannot be explained even though he is complex?
Answer
I explained this there. Because man, or ordinary entities familiar to us, are not self-caused. The argument shows that there must be an entity that is not of the type of entities familiar to us, and that is self-caused (that is, it does not require a cause outside itself in order to exist).
Discussion on Answer
Why is it built on the cosmological argument? The physico-theological argument is based on the fact that in the physical system familiar to us, complex things require an external designer and do not design themselves. The cosmological argument is based on the fact that in the system familiar to us, every existing thing (regardless of its complexity) requires an external creator and does not create itself.
Apparently I didn’t phrase myself properly. If the reason we do not apply the statement “every complex thing has a designer” to God himself is the fact that he is his own cause, unlike other things which have a cause, then we are assuming that he is self-caused, unlike other things that are not self-caused. But that point follows from the cosmological argument. The moment I do not agree with the cosmological argument, I will reach the conclusion that God himself also needs an explanation for why he is complex, or alternatively, I will not need a reason for why the singular point is complex. Hope that helped.
It seems that you are mixing up the arguments themselves (which are two different arguments) with the answer to the question about them (which is one answer). The arguments themselves differ in that one proves from existence and the other from complexity. For both arguments there is a question why they are not valid with respect to God, and to that question there is one answer that applies to both arguments: the arguments are valid only within the system familiar to us, and not beyond it.
Does this basically mean that the physico-theological argument is built on top of the cosmological argument?
If so, what is the physico-theological argument worth? All that really needs to be clarified is whether the cosmological argument is correct or not, and based on that to know whether God exists.
Or can one say instead that the physico-theological argument proves that if such a creator does in fact exist, then he is also intelligent, and it does not come to prove at all that a creator in fact exists?