Dawkin's Universe (evolution, creation, attending, Abraham, God)

[misanthropic_clown]

I recently had the pleasure of attending a public lecture by Professor Richard Dawkins at my university. He was, overall, very good, but there was one point that I still feel a little confused about.

In order to bring God into the realm of being a scientific hypothesis, Dawkins claims that the universe would be a much different thing with a God than without one. This point seemed to be skimmed over somewhat, which is why I want to open a discussion on it now.

Do you think that the universe should/would be different if there is a God [note that Dawkins places emphasis on the God of the Abrahamic religions when he says God]?

What do you think a Godly universe should look like, and adversely what should a naturalistic universe look like? What qualities would you be looking for in order to judge one way or another?

[Father Heathen]

I think if the universe was designed by an intelligent mind it would be a lot less random and chaotic and a lot more organized and structured towards efficiency and purpose.

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

I think if the universe was designed by an intelligent mind it would be a lot less random and chaotic and a lot more organized and structured towards efficiency and purpose.

Hmm... I guess it's hard to imagine, but how could you see the level of organisation expressing itself? What would 'tip the balance' for you?

[Alex_G]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

I recently had the pleasure of attending a public lecture by Professor Richard Dawkins at my university. He was, overall, very good, but there was one point that I still feel a little confused about.

In order to bring God into the realm of being a scientific hypothesis, Dawkins claims that the universe would be a much different thing with a God than without one. This point seemed to be skimmed over somewhat, which is why I want to open a discussion on it now.

Do you think that the universe should/would be different if there is a God [note that Dawkins places emphasis on the God of the Abrahamic religions when he says God]?

What do you think a Godly universe should look like, and adversely what should a naturalistic universe look like? What qualities would you be looking for in order to judge one way or another?

Id imagine from an evolutionary point, the world is exactly as would be predicted if it had develpoed by natural selection rather than by some inteligent design. Many aspects of the human body suggest it, like the now useless appendix to the back problems we have by being on 2 legs.

[Father Heathen]

Consider the vast expanse of our universe and how humanity may never see 99% of it. Also consider that if humanity was the center and purpose of God's creation, everything in existence would hold some relevance towards that.

[The Seeker]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

Consider the vast expanse of our universe and how humanity may never see 99% of it. Also consider that if humanity was the center and purpose of God's creation, everything in existence would hold some relevance towards that.

I agree. I would also add that I wouldn't see the need for evolution in a world that was created by an omnipotent God. Why wouldn't he/she create things to be perfectly suited for their environment and purpose to begin with?

[Fluffy]

I don't really understand Dawkins' point here either. It seems to me that given an omnipotent being, the universe could look just as it is and still admit its existence.

However, I suppose an argument could be constructed based on what universe would be most likely given an omnipotent being and whether or not we are, in fact, that universe. I'm just not sure how you would go about doing such a thing convincingly.

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

Consider the vast expanse of our universe and how humanity may never see 99% of it. Also consider that if humanity was the center and purpose of God's creation, everything in existence would hold some relevance towards that.

Not necessarily. There are many scriptures indicating God's creation to be of infinite expanse, and it is not an unfamiliar belief that there are other people than us who have been created. Thus the concept of us being the center of God's universe is not necessarily true. It could be that there are many pockets of people.

[Don Penguinoini]

Thinking the way he does, there should be clouds, angels and god sitting on a throne... And on the other side? Satan sitting on a throne made of burning lava. Demons flying carrying naked people with half a leg.

But thats good old Daw(dick)akins for you.

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I don't really understand Dawkins' point here either. It seems to me that given an omnipotent being, the universe could look just as it is and still admit its existence.

However, I suppose an argument could be constructed based on what universe would be most likely given an omnipotent being and whether or not we are, in fact, that universe. I'm just not sure how you would go about doing such a thing convincingly.

Those where my thoughts at the time. I would have raised the question, but there were a lot of people queuing up to ask stuff (that and I'm a coward).

I don't really see it as much of an issue, but since Dawkins appeared to give the point some importance, I was curious as to what naturalists thought of the point.