George Smith's 'the Case against God' passage meaning?

Question

“Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning.”
Can anyone please explain what Smith means by this excerpt please?

Answer 1

By definition natural objects are NOT designed therefore to attempt to find any designed object in nature is futile unless you remove yourself one step and infer a supernatural designer. Then and only then can you infer design in nature.

Answer 2

To simplify this think what makes up, up. It is only up in relation to down. Things are classified by distinction. You have to start with what you know and what evidence there is. We know a building is desined by intelligence. Now look at nature and try to find something common. It simply isn't there. Nature is simply random with no intent or meaning. A tree isn't where it is for any particular reason other than that is where the seed landed and germinated. There is a clear distinction between what we designed and what we didn't and that is the only world we live in. We have those 2 options. He is saying in order to show design in nature we would have to see a 3rd option to contrast to nature. That 3rd option would have to be the plane of existence the designer is on. Now in regards to atheism being a waste of time because you can't disprove a creator. This is just circular logic. I can't disprove fairies but most people don't think they are real. Atheism simply looks at evidence and comes to the conclusion since there is no evidence for a creator there is no reason to think there is one. That's what the scientific method is all about. Creationism and every argument they try to make for it all starts with the assumption that there is a creator. Rational arguments have to come from true assumptions.

Answer 3

He's saying scientists assume all natural objects are without a designer so you can't use science to decide which are not natural and which are natural. Everything a scientist decides is science therefore excludes a Creator.



But the counter to that is that scientists do consider the existence of extra terrestrials as a source of creation. So they're already violated their "assumption that all objects under their study are natural".

Answer 4

in no way examine it, yet while that's like different different books I truthfully have examine that mean to confirm atheism, i contemplate whether he makes any new claims. all the others carry to a similar few concepts, none of which may well be used to disprove God.

Answer 5

he is saying that you can not claim intelegent desighn unless you know the designer. just a little something extra for you to think about... the solar system has a center and the planets and moons revolve around it. the planets have moons that revolve around them. going into the microverse the atom has a center and it has protons and neutrons revolving around them. can you see the design in that? isn't it amazing how our planet is not realy chaotic in that every thing depends on everything els to exist. it is God . You cant create life and order with a big bang