The following is my short refutation of the Argument for God, from Design:
The Argument from Design purports to show that God exists by showing that only he could have designed the universe (or some part of the universe.) So, what does “design” mean? The relevant definition here would be: “conceived in a mind [God’s mind] and intentionally implemented in reality.” So the concept of “design” requires the existence of a mind (conceptual faculty) to conceive the idea for the object(s). Further, in order to do anything, the mind must have an intention or purpose. A “purpose” is a goal of a conceptual consciousness; the value for which it acts. Take careful note of the meanings of these concepts in reality and their relationships to each other; it is these concepts on which the Argument from Design rests.
The refutation of the Argument from Design is to observe what is actually required to infer design in an object and to show that this cannot be done with “God.” To infer design from an object: a) You must already know of some type of purposeful entity (based on other evidence) whose goals could potentially be served by the object. b1) Further, you must be able to observe some sort of purposeful function for the object as a whole (the object is a means to a goal beyond itself, whether practical or artistic.) OR: b2) You must be able to find evidence of a method of purposeful manufacture that is already known as such by other evidence. c) In order to observe that (b1) or (b2) is true, you must be able to contrast the purposeful nature of the construction of the object in question with something else that was not manufactured and has not been altered for a purpose.
The argument from design is capable of producing evidence of human-like aliens from observations of human-like alien artifacts, since human goals could potentially be fulfilled by such artifacts. But because of (a), the argument from design can’t apply to an immortal and radically different creature, whose alleged goals we cannot fathom. We have no basis for thinking that living beings have any purpose beyond themselves. They grow, metabolize, reproduce, and die in an endless cycle. The forms evolve over time, but to no clear goal beyond their own continuance and survival. Of what possible value could a succession of mortal humans be to an ultra-powerful, immortal, unchanging being? There’s no basis even for speculation, because there’s no basis even to consider it possible for an immortal, unchanging being to have values. (This supposition is arbitrary.)
The only known reference we have for purposes, and the relationship of designer to designed object, is humans and their creations. Indeed, the very concepts of “purpose”, “goal” and “value” only have meaning in reference to temporal, living entities that face an alternative between life and death. Goals and values are what living entities pursue in order to keep themselves alive, growing, flourishing, as opposed to deteriorating, suffering, dying. The concept of “purpose” is the same as “goal,” except that “purpose” involves the conceptual consciousness of a living being that is intent on the goal.
Thus, to say that an immortal and unchanging being has a “purpose” is literally meaningless; it defies the actual basis of the concept. Therefore a “design” by such an entity is meaningless and impossible to hypothesize.
In other words, whenever anyone talks about “God’s design” or “God’s purposes,” they are literally not making sense. The only way such phrases can be made comprehensible at all is by anthropomorphizing this alleged God into a mortal, very powerful human.
(For more on the nature of concepts and values, I refer the reader to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Exp. 2nd Ed. and The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, and to Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality by Tara Smith)
—–
Related Posts:
Link Highlight: Introduction to Objectivism Playlist
The Morality of Rational Egoism: Short Notes
Atlas Shrugged, Altruism and Egoism
Objectivism In Depth 
Reblogged this on Demented Musings and commented:
Add your thoughts here… (optional)
Tragically, this point has been intuitively obvious to me since I was a small child yet remains completely unknown to a majority of people around the world.
I may be misunderstanding. Are you saying that since we can’t fathom what the purposes of God are, therefore He doesn’t exist?
No, I’m not deducing “God does not exist” from an inability to understand a purpose.
I’m saying that for an argument from design to hold up, we need to be able to observe the results of a distinctly purposeful construction of the allegedly designed object. If we can see no potential purpose to be served by the object, then we can’t conclude that it was designed by anyone.
Beyond that, I’m also saying that we have no basis to think that an entity, with the traditional description Christians give to “God,” can even have purposes.
Do you have any basis to think that a rock can be thinking up evil schemes against you? Well, the traditional description of God as “immortal and unchanging” makes such an entity like the rock in the relevant sense, (nonliving.) So the argument from design for such an entity fails at an even deeper level.
I’m not convinced that mortality is a requisite for purposefulness. One could imagine an immortal being that seeks to fulfill goals to enhance his quality of being, i.e. to flourish. And as it turns out, Christianity believes that God created man to glorify Him.
the point is that the rock is immortal and unchanging ..these words (concepts) have a context . more directly to your point he is immortal he has no quality of being … he is unchanging meaning in all aspects , an unchanging being that “seeks” seeks what? why? ” “enhance” what reason could such a being even have to concieve of such a concept it is unchanging and immortal there is no spectrum , standard, or catalyst for these actions. an immortal and unchanging like a rock has no cause by how you have defined its nature for the later actions you suggested nor would it have any basis to “design”