Creator?, Argument from Design

[truthseeker1111]

Hi all,

I am trying to figure out the truth of reality (good luck to me, right?).

Anyway, so here I am, faced with 4000+ religions in the world, not necessarily including non-theistic belief systems, and not knowing how exactly how to approach this mountain of purported truths, to sift and see if I could find what seems the most true to me.

But a friend of mine did suggest a way to approach this mountain, by just starting with a simple question - is there a God in the world or not, and taking it from there. And we don't really even have to call it "God". But we could say, is there divinity. Well, an initial way that I would approach this question would actually be to evaluate the classic arguments for and against the existence of "God", the creator.

The argument in favor of a creator, that appeals to me most is the argument from design. IE the world is so sophisticated, and runs together in such a well-ordered systematic, fruitful way, that a designer would seem to be the best explanation for this. (In the way that a watch implies a watchmaker). Both the fine-tuning of the natural laws and phenomena of the cosmos on the one hand, and also the sophisticated systems of living bodies, such as humans', imply there having been a designer of all this, and that it did not happen just by chance.

To argue against this, I have heard that evolution and the anthropic principle can be used.

For evolution, I'm guessing I'd have to get into the fossil record to see whether the evidence supports unguided or guided evolution. (ie guided by a higher power aka God, or unguided - just pure Darwinian mutation and natural selection).

I've started looking into the anthropic principle, which may also need the proposition of a multiverse to completely counter the argument from design (eg www.youtube.com/watch?v=CexcmggApr4)).
But it's not compelling yet. Trying now to look more into this.
I would like to see the best that evolution and the anthropic principle can do against the argument from design.

Feel free to correct me on any mistakes or presumptions I've made, to talk about the fossil record and unguided evolution, the anthropic principle, the multiverse, to provide useful links for any of the above, or to respond in any other way.

Thank you very much again.

 

[YmirGF]

One side has literally mountains of empirical evidence whereas the other side has no empirical evidence but has a lot of anecdotal evidence.

Yep, it's a pretty hard choice deciding which one to go with.

 

[George-ananda]

by just starting with a simple question - is there a God in the world or not, and taking it from there. And we don't really even have to call it "God".

I am thinking your path will lead you to agnosticism or a weak theism or pantheism. To me the central question is 'am I just a physical body or am I something more'. If I am more than the known physical, then what is that 'more' and how does that apply to how I think about and live my life. So being a skeptic of just accepting religious dogma from the east or west, I require some kind of tangible evidence on which to base my answer to the question. To me the key starting point came from things colloquially called paranormal or supernatural. Even after a skeptical look at phenomena like NDEs, childhood reincarnation memories, spirit communication to the living, etc., etc. I was beyond reasonable doubt that we must be more than is understood by current western science. My quest as to what this 'more' is lead me to eastern/Indian wisdom traditions which sees these so-called paranormal things as really just part of an expanded normal.

So, I wish you well on your quest but if you leave your investigation to just those things areas talked about in the OP, I am guessing you will either be agnostic or come to some vague theistic or polytheistic view.

 

[Gharib]

I believe, for someone who doesn't adhere to a belief system, you have answered your own question;

The world is so sophisticated, and runs together in such a well-ordered systematic, fruitful way, that a designer would seem to be the best explanation for this. (In the way that a watch implies a watchmaker). Both the fine-tuning of the natural laws and phenomena of the cosmos on the one hand, and also the sophisticated systems of living bodies, such as humans', imply there having been a designer of all this, and that it did not happen just by chance.

 

[Gharib]

When you look at evolution, which ever version, there is never a strong chain of evidence. Something always seems to be missing. But the key to this, as evolutionists claim, is that just because we haven't found something it doesn't mean it's not there. By the same principal, just because we don't see God it doesn't mean he isn't there. A substantial amount of evidence points to a being who has fashioned all things. It's like pain, we feel it, but can't see it.

Everything is created with a purpose, once this is understood it becomes clear that it is due to intelligent design.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When you look at evolution, which ever version, there is never a strong chain of evidence. Something always seems to be missing. But the key to this, as evolutionists claim, is that just because we haven't found something it doesn't mean it's not there. By the same principal, just because we don't see God it doesn't mean he isn't there. A substantial amount of evidence points to a being who has fashioned all things. It's like pain, we feel it, but can't see it.

Everything is created with a purpose, once this is understood it becomes clear that it is due to intelligent design.

Isn't that like claiming, there is a planet named Bliantper in thousands of universes from here?

Many people theorize the nature of this planet (as so they call it) others find a personal connection with it-since it's beyond our space and time, thus greater than ourselves. Then culture is developed because people have like feelings about this unknown known planet, then they conclude because they see an intelligent design on this planet somehow this design (if it exists) is supposed describe the nature and function of a planet we only theorize and believe not know exists.

We put too much emphasis on belief as a fact. It's logically wrong even if it is personally right.

As far as evolution, I have no clue about it. If it just means design based on scientific terminology and perspective that doesn't mean anyone designed it. We just placed a name, made a claim, and decide to personalize or study it since we want to know everything-as if we are the center of the universe. Are we really?

Guys. Stop looking up.

 

[Valjean]

The world is so sophisticated, and runs together in such a well-ordered systematic, fruitful way, that a designer would seem to be the best explanation for this. (In the way that a watch implies a watchmaker). Both the fine-tuning of the natural laws and phenomena of the cosmos on the one hand, and also the sophisticated systems of living bodies, such as humans', imply there having been a designer of all this, and that it did not happen just by chance.

But most of the mechanisms creating this well ordered, sophisticated world are understood and natural -- no God required or implied.
Just because something is complicated or hard for our little minds to comprehend, doesn't justify resorting to magic and folklore as an "explanation."

When you look at evolution, which ever version, there is never a strong chain of evidence. Something always seems to be missing. But the key to this, as evolutionists claim, is that just because we haven't found something it doesn't mean it's not there. By the same principal, just because we don't see God it doesn't mean he isn't there. A substantial amount of evidence points to a being who has fashioned all things. It's like pain, we feel it, but can't see it.

Everything is created with a purpose, once this is understood it becomes clear that it is due to intelligent design.

There is a massive chain of evidence for evolution, from a dozen different disciplines. You're God-of-the-gapping.

Just because we don't see unicorns (faeries, elves, Cthulu, Flying Spaghetti Monster....) doesn't mean they aren't there, but, as with God, there's no evidence for them, so scientists withhold belief.

Where is this substantial amount of evidence? Is there really evidence? -- you seem to be including feelings in this category.

Why do you say everything's created for a purpose? Isn't this just wishful thinking or a pleasant fantasy?
There is no evidence for purpose. Order does not necessarily imply purpose. Nature's a blind watchmaker.

 

[Gharib]

Isn't that like claiming, there is a planet named Bliantper in thousands of universes from here?

Many people theorize the nature of this planet (as so they call it) others find a personal connection with it-since it's beyond our space and time, thus greater than ourselves. Then culture is developed because people have like feelings about this unknown known planet, then they conclude because they see an intelligent design on this planet somehow this design (if it exists) is supposed describe the nature and function of a planet we only theorize and believe not know exists.

We put too much emphasis on belief as a fact. It's logically wrong even if it is personally right.

As far as evolution, I have no clue about it. If it just means design based on scientific terminology and perspective that doesn't mean anyone designed it. We just placed a name, made a claim, and decide to personalize or study it since we want to know everything-as if we are the center of the universe. Are we really?

Guys. Stop looking up.

Faith is logical, it's why so many people have faith. It is far from being a personal thing, it's when one looks too hard that we see past it and everything that leads to it. Just like with God, we need to see him to believe, so how many of you have ever met the people who made your computers or the guy who came up with the internet? My answer would be zero, but we assume that something which runs so well and serves a purpose was created by someone.

Some examples to think of which generally get ignored:
- It is part of our nature to call out to a higher powerful being when we are helpless, even if one is an atheist. It our nature to turn to God when we are weak.
- Life on earth would be chaos without God's design. Everything that we can think of takes careful planning and precise actions in order to achieve something of a positive outcome, we witness this on a daily basis, why do we ignore this? Why is it so illogical to say that God created everything through intelligent design when nothing else of any significance is created by a set of random events?
- There is not one thing that anyone can name where an unguided process has ever led to a positive outcome. Would we ever set up a factory and let it run it's course without any intervention? Even with our own selves we are required to intervene when we become ill and there is nothing that runs or operates without any kind of intervention. Let alone a universe and everything in it.

As for evolution, it was founded on ignorance and racism. Darwin was a person who hadn't seen anything, and when he saw different species share certain features they must have evolved. Evolution is the foundation of mass slavery, where a man that was born free by his mother would end up as a servant of white man because Darwin's theory was that white man had evolved better than the black man.

I don't know if you know of Ota Benga.

 

[FearGod]

But most of the mechanisms creating this well ordered, sophisticated world are understood and natural -- no God required or implied.
Just because something is complicated or hard for our little minds to comprehend, doesn't justify resorting to magic and folklore as an "explanation."

Is the singularity understood? how it started, what was before the singularity?

There is a massive chain of evidence for evolution, from a dozen different disciplines. You're God-of-the-gapping.

The evidences show that there was life in the simple forms and evolved to more complex forms of life,
how that proves that God wasn't needed? God didn't say that from the first day we created man on earth.

Just because we don't see unicorns (faeries, elves, Cthulu, Flying Spaghetti Monster....) doesn't mean they aren't there, but, as with God, there's no evidence for them, so scientists withhold belief.

If we didn't see the singularity, then that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Where is this substantial amount of evidence? Is there really evidence? -- you seem to be including feelings in this category.

Your evidences that nature did it is the same evidences that God did it plus the prophecies which proves that God
has knowledge on the future events.

Why do you say everything's created for a purpose? Isn't this just wishful thinking or a pleasant fantasy?
There is no evidence for purpose. Order does not necessarily imply purpose. Nature's a blind watchmaker.

What if we have lungs but no air yet to breath? but yes coincidentally there was air then the lungs evolved.

 

[Gharib]

But most of the mechanisms creating this well ordered, sophisticated world are understood and natural -- no God required or implied.
Just because something is complicated or hard for our little minds to comprehend, doesn't justify resorting to magic and folklore as an "explanation."

There is a massive chain of evidence for evolution, from a dozen different disciplines. You're God-of-the-gapping.

Just because we don't see unicorns (faeries, elves, Cthulu, Flying Spaghetti Monster....) doesn't mean they aren't there, but, as with God, there's no evidence for them, so scientists withhold belief.

Where is this substantial amount of evidence? Is there really evidence? -- you seem to be including feelings in this category.

Why do you say everything's created for a purpose? Isn't this just wishful thinking or a pleasant fantasy?
There is no evidence for purpose. Order does not necessarily imply purpose. Nature's a blind watchmaker.

So if order doesn't imply a purpose or a creator then only if things weren't in such good order would they have required an intelligent designer. That makes sense, quite logical too.

Evolution serves no purpose, it is a useless and time wasting theory to detract people from paying attention to God's signs within everyday life through logical reasoning. When called to account, evolutionists always say it takes a long time to notice any major changes and I mean thousands of year if not millions. This is what I meant by 'useless and waste of time'. What more of a change could there exist than a small amount of fluid becoming a man? Don't we ever see this massive change happen? Women, haven't you ever housed this change within yourselves?

So why the running around in giant circles claiming evolution takes very long periods of time before any change becomes noticeable? What more could there be than fluid becoming a man? (And I am giving you guys something to cling onto with this example. A shame no evolutionist ever thought of it before. I've been on this forum for years and no one has ever presented this as evidence for evolution).

So now either an evolutionary process doesn't take a lot of time or it does. If it does then mans creation is either "wishful thinking or a pleasant fantasy" OR it doesn't in which case, if a drop of fluid undergoes such extraordinary changes within a very short period of time, why have humans remained humans for thousands of years without having evolved into something else which we are supposedly supposed to evolve into?

Please someone explain the logic in this? I think I just confused myself now.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Faith is logical, it's why so many people have faith. It is far from being a personal thing, it's when one looks too hard that we see past it and everything that leads to it. Just like with God, we need to see him to believe, so how many of you have ever met the people who made your computers or the guy who came up with the internet? My answer would be zero, but we assume that something which runs so well and serves a purpose was created by someone.

One thing popped out at me. How is faith not a personal thing?

I don't know if I'd compare god with the internet, though. We know that people exist to create computers and things of that nature. The design of computers can be studied. I've met people in computer technology. So, we have a plethora of physical ways of knowing who is behind the computer even though we can't meet the actual person who thought of the idea. I don't see how the person who made up the idea is more important than the people who are constantly putting new computers together. (I have a polytheistic outlook on this. Instead of looking at one originator and many servants. I see many originators putting together that idea regardless of who thought it first).

- It is part of our nature to call out to a higher powerful being when we are helpless, even if one is an atheist. It our nature to turn to God when we are weak

This I disagree with. What is the logic of calling out to a higher power? I have been weak, surgery, and the whole nine yards and never called to god or a higher power. I've had clinical depression which is worse than my seizures and god never comes to mind. It's not inherit that we call to a higher power. I think psychologically, adults don't have that "parent" figure anymore. A higher power is like a parent figure. Why does it have to be higher?

Life on earth would be chaos without God's design. Everything that we can think of takes careful planning and precise actions in order to achieve something of a positive outcome, we witness this on a daily basis, why do we ignore this? Why is it so illogical to say that God created everything through intelligent design when nothing else of any significance is created by a set of random events?

It's not illogical in and of itself to say god created design. By his nature of what's written, I understand how and why. Without god, everything would still have a design, if we like to see it that way. If it brings us comfort to see everything as a pattern, then psychologically, it is healthy for one's mental (and spiritual) well being. However, since we are not the center of the universe and scripture would not exist without humans, if nothing existed but the earth, how can we logically assume there is a god outside of our bias and personal beliefs? What in nature without our personal interpretation, observation, and what our scripture says shows that there is a creator? It can't be process of elimination. It can't be assumptions. There can't be "gaps". I just feel we need to be comfortable with not knowing.

There is not one thing that anyone can name where an unguided process has ever led to a positive outcome. Would we ever set up a factory and let it run it's course without any intervention? Even with our own selves we are required to intervene when we become ill and there is nothing that runs or operates without any kind of intervention. Let alone a universe and everything in it.

The earth turns on it's on axis not any one else's. If I get sick, I get myself some Advil, no one gives it to me. Intervention usually happens outside of our control. That or if we want intervention, then we ask. However, it's not an inherit thing in nature. Nature-people included-are all interconnected with each other. What I do affects you and what you do affects John Smith in India. Everything is unguided.

What you're talking about is the "illusion of control." That's why we see ourselves as well, we want control. Then we balance it by saying, "okay, I have no control so I will let someone else take control". Instead of observing and just living a life we cannot control. It's alright to lean on people. At the end, it's all about you.

I don't know if you know of Ota Benga.

No. I'd have to look him up.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hi all,

I am trying to figure out the truth of reality (good luck to me, right?).

Anyway, so here I am, faced with 4000+ religions in the world, not necessarily including non-theistic belief systems, and not knowing how exactly how to approach this mountain of purported truths, to sift and see if I could find what seems the most true to me.

But a friend of mine did suggest a way to approach this mountain, by just starting with a simple question - is there a God in the world or not, and taking it from there. And we don't really even have to call it "God". But we could say, is there divinity. Well, an initial way that I would approach this question would actually be to evaluate the classic arguments for and against the existence of "God", the creator.

The argument in favor of a creator, that appeals to me most is the argument from design. IE the world is so sophisticated, and runs together in such a well-ordered systematic, fruitful way, that a designer would seem to be the best explanation for this. (In the way that a watch implies a watchmaker). Both the fine-tuning of the natural laws and phenomena of the cosmos on the one hand, and also the sophisticated systems of living bodies, such as humans', imply there having been a designer of all this, and that it did not happen just by chance.

To argue against this, I have heard that evolution and the anthropic principle can be used.

For evolution, I'm guessing I'd have to get into the fossil record to see whether the evidence supports unguided or guided evolution. (ie guided by a higher power aka God, or unguided - just pure Darwinian mutation and natural selection).

I've started looking into the anthropic principle, which may also need the proposition of a multiverse to completely counter the argument from design (eg www.youtube.com/watch?v=CexcmggApr4)).
But it's not compelling yet. Trying now to look more into this.
I would like to see the best that evolution and the anthropic principle can do against the argument from design.

Feel free to correct me on any mistakes or presumptions I've made, to talk about the fossil record and unguided evolution, the anthropic principle, the multiverse, to provide useful links for any of the above, or to respond in any other way.

Thank you very much again.

I don't see any "true" order. I see dynamics by which periods of stability intermingles with chaos leading back to periods of stability.

Maybe our " original designer" is long gone.

 

[Skwim]

The argument in favor of a creator, that appeals to me most is the argument from design. IE the world is so sophisticated, and runs together in such a well-ordered systematic, fruitful way, that a designer would seem to be the best explanation for this. (In the way that a watch implies a watchmaker). Both the fine-tuning of the natural laws and phenomena of the cosmos on the one hand, and also the sophisticated systems of living bodies, such as humans', imply there having been a designer of all this, and that it did not happen just by chance.

The argument from design, philosophically known as the Teleological argument, has been criticized and countered since the Hellenistic and Roman eras. More recently thinkers such as David Hume and Immanuel Kant argued against it. Currently, because of its failure to convince, it's been pretty much of a dead fish, although once in awhile it will resurface. In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins takes it to task. If you're truly serious about the argument from design I suggest you look into its criticisms.

To argue against this, I have heard that evolution and the anthropic principle can be used.

For evolution, I'm guessing I'd have to get into the fossil record to see whether the evidence supports unguided or guided evolution. (ie guided by a higher power aka God, or unguided - just pure Darwinian mutation and natural selection).

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with god. No more than automobile manufacturing does. Those supporting evolution recognize its validity, and lack of any need to invoke the powers of god in order to make it work; pure biological mechanisms are more than adequate. To bring in a god would only clutter up the science.


.

 

[metis]

When you look at evolution, which ever version, there is never a strong chain of evidence. Something always seems to be missing. But the key to this, as evolutionists claim, is that just because we haven't found something it doesn't mean it's not there. By the same principal, just because we don't see God it doesn't mean he isn't there. A substantial amount of evidence points to a being who has fashioned all things. It's like pain, we feel it, but can't see it.

Everything is created with a purpose, once this is understood it becomes clear that it is due to intelligent design.

There simply is not one shred of evidence that there was a God or Gods that created all, and your last sentence above simply shows that it is you who has jumped to a conclusion minus evidence. It is logically impossible to prove that there wasn't a creator or creators, but it's also impossible to prove that there were.

 

[Skwim]

When you look at evolution, which ever version, there is never a strong chain of evidence.

Errr, just what versions are you talking about? As far as I'm aware there is only one agreed upon current version of evolution.

Something always seems to be missing.

Such as? Are you referring to some unkown or another? Science's raison d'être ?

But the key to this, as evolutionists claim, is that just because we haven't found something it doesn't mean it's not there.

But isn't that how we all operate. Or do you dismiss the possible existence of every unknown thing just because it hasn't been found yet?

By the same principal, just because we don't see God it doesn't mean he isn't there.

Not the same principle at all. Assertions that god does, in fact exist, are nothing like the assertions that unicorns might exist.

A substantial amount of evidence points to a being who has fashioned all things.

None of which is convincing enough to sway a substantial portion, 23%, of the American population.

It's like pain, we feel it, but can't see it.

Is seeing suppose to trump feeling as an indicator of existence?

Everything is created with a purpose, once this is understood it becomes clear that it is due to intelligent design.

I certainly hope this isn't said to convince anyone, but merely an attempt at self-reassurance.


.

 

[Deeje]

There simply is not one shred of evidence that there was a God or Gods that created all, and your last sentence above simply shows that it is you who has jumped to a conclusion minus evidence. It is logically impossible to prove that there wasn't a creator or creators, but it's also impossible to prove that there were.

When you examine just these few caterpillars and the amazing variety and design displayed whilst they eat their way to adulthood, whereby they know exactly the right time to build themselves a cocoon and then totally transform themselves into a completely different creature.....how does one ever assume that these are the product of blind chance?

 

[metis]

...how does one ever assume that these are the product of blind chance?

It is not "blind chance" as natural selection doesn't leave things up for grabs.

 

[Valjean]

When you examine just these few caterpillars and the amazing variety and design displayed whilst they eat their way to adulthood, whereby they know exactly the right time to build themselves a cocoon and then totally transform themselves into a completely different creature.....how does one ever assume that these are the product of blind chance?

No-one assumes that. That would be absurd. We assume they are the products of natural selection.
Yours is an argument from personal incredulity, and ignorance -- of the mechanisms of natural selection.

The common, well understood, easily observable, automatic mechanisms described by the ToE easily accounts for all this variation.
Even if The ToE were wrong, assuming only a single alternative "explanation" would be illogical -- a false dilemma.

Pretty caterpillars, though

 

[Deeje]

It is not "blind chance" as natural selection doesn't leave things up for grabs.

Let me see if I understand.....natural selection seems to be a nice way of saying..."we think that these perfectly designed creatures were all beautiful "accidents of nature", through which the organism was improving itself generation by generation over millions of years, with no 'intent' on the part of the organism to produce the finished product, but ending when the desired traits were perfected"...Is that even close?

So this insect 'unintelligently' designed itself to look exactly like a leaf so that predators would find it hard to see through this perfect camouflage?

This orchid just instinctively knew that in order to get pollinated, it had to grow a structure that not only looked like a female wasp, but actually developed the female wasp's pheromone to invite the male wasp to mate with it, thus pollinating the flower and perpetuating the species?...again undirected and with no intelligence behind it?

And this peacock developed this elaborate plumage to attract a mate, without knowing that this particular design would attract female peacocks, but not females of any any other species?

Natural selection is not directed but just happens with no intelligence behind its design at all?...and produces end results that cannot in any logical mind be accounted for by the random selection of genes.

When I see things like these with my own eyes, logic tells me that these things had a designer who exhibits incredible creativity and ingenuity....not to mention an eye for beauty.

People are free to believe whatever they like about how life changed on this planet, but until they solve the mystery of how life began, what is the point?

I vote for the intelligent designer.....

 

[Twilight Hue]

When you examine just these few caterpillars and the amazing variety and design displayed whilst they eat their way to adulthood, whereby they know exactly the right time to build themselves a cocoon and then totally transform themselves into a completely different creature.....how does one ever assume that these are the product of blind chance?

So uh. Just where is this alleged designing taking place?