Is the universe designed?

[painted wolf]

see... metaphysics not science.

wa:do

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If the universe being designed implies a designer, then what designed the designer? If intelligence cannot evolve on its own, how can a superintelligence just pop into existence?

I'm frankly amazed at how many people find his silly 'argument' coherent, much less meaningful.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What people fail to appreciate is that the argument from design, while neither 'scientific' nor an instance of compelling poof, is a fully reasonable inference. We live in an wonderfully and intriguingly creative universe. Why that is may well be unknowable, but it seems to me that there is something implied that warrants deep appreciation and awe.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not in the sense of a God having designed it. It is, however, shaped by the laws of physics (where they apply).

The problem here, my friend, is that you reify "laws of physics," which are no more than human attempts to describe observed regularities. Your second sentence devolves to: the universe is the way it is because it is the way it is. I'm not sure that's overly helpful ...

 

[Magic Man]

I'm frankly amazed at how many people find his silly 'argument' coherent, much less meaningful.

I'm frankly surprised at how much you criticize things unfairly. I mean, really, I think it's funny that you call that argument "silly". I find it even funnier that you like to call things names like that and run away before actually trying to explain your warped thought process.

I'd love to hear why you think the argument "If the universe must be designed because of certain features it shares with the designer, then wouldn't the designer then have to be designed, too?" is silly. I won'y hold my breath, though.

What people fail to appreciate is that the argument from design, while neither 'scientific' nor an instance of compelling poof, is a fully reasonable inference. We live in an wonderfully and intriguingly creative universe. Why that is may well be unknowable, but it seems to me that there is something implied that warrants deep appreciation and awe.

No, most people realize that. The problem is when people say "It must have been designed. I mean, how could _____ have happened if it wasn't designed?" It's the idea that in their minds design is the only solution that gets me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm frankly surprised at how much you criticize things unfairly. I mean, really, I think it's funny that you call that argument "silly".

Perhaps that says more about you than the argument at hand.

Let's see ...

If intelligence cannot evolve on its own, how can a superintelligence just pop into existence?

First:

Intelligence does not evolve on its own. Intelligence evolves in the context of a web of relationships and interdependencies that allow for complexity, including biochemical complexity.​

Second:

Evolution is in no way incompatible with the argument from design.​

Third:

There is absolutely nothing inherent in the argument from design that implies, much less necessitates, a 'superintelligence that just pops into existence.'​

Calling the argument silly was, if anything, kind.

 

[Magic Man]

Perhaps that says more about you than the argument at hand.

Yes, it says that I actually understand simple ideas and am reasonable.

Let's see ...First:

Intelligence does not evolve on its own. Intelligence evolves in the context of a web of relationships and interdependencies that allow for complexity, including biochemical complexity.
​

Second:

Evolution is in no way incompatible with the argument from design.
​

Third:

There is absolutely nothing inherent in the argument from design that implies, much less necessitates, a 'superintelligence that just pops into existence.'
​

Calling the argument silly was, if anything, kind.

I see. So it's just a misunderstanding of the argument on your part. I'll try to rephrase it for you then. Stop me if I'm going too fast.

The claim is that the universe is too complex and intricate to have developped without the aid of a designer. However, any designer that could design such a thing would then be so intricate and complex as to warrant its own designer by the same logic. The designer in these scenarios is, of course, God, which leaves two possibilities:

1) God has been around forever, in which case, the same could just as easily be said for the universe.

2) God just popped into existence.

Since the claim is usually that such a thing as the universe couldn't just pop out of nowhere, logically, the same thing would have to apply to the designer.

Now, as to your point on evolution: What does that have to do with anything? Yes, he used the word "evolve", but not in that way.

I hope this clears it up for you, and you understand why your comment was silly. If not, I'll be around to help you further.

 

[painted wolf]

What about the idea that "god" is an emergent property of the universe?
If the claim is that the universe is the result of natural laws in action, why can't the same be said for god?

Does "god" need to be separate from the universe, or even supernatural?

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

What about the idea that "god" is an emergent property of the universe?
If the claim is that the universe is the result of natural laws in action, why can't the same be said for god?

Does "god" need to be separate from the universe, or even supernatural?

wa:do

I would think "god" would have to be separate from the universe to have designed it.

I would also say the problem with the claim "The universe is the result of natural laws in action, so the same can be said for God" is that posing God as the designer of the universe would imply that he created those natural laws, not that he was created by them.

However, aside from the design argument, I see nothing wrong with those ideas on god.

 

[painted wolf]

Or that perhaps "god" is those laws rather than simply creating them.

This is why its a metaphysics issue, rather than a scientific one. Like talking about cultural quirks like 'amok' and accents, it can't be explained purely by science.

wa:do

 

[The Voice of Reason]

The problem here, my friend, is that you reify "laws of physics," which are no more than human attempts to describe observed regularities. Your second sentence devolves to: the universe is the way it is because it is the way it is. I'm not sure that's overly helpful ...

I added the second sentence to acknowledge the hypothesis that (going backward in time), the nearer one gets to the moment of the Big Bang, most physicists believe that the laws of physics (as we presently understand them) did not obtain.

You are correct, in that "the laws of physics" are nothing more than our attempt to describe the way our universe works. They reflect our limitations of understanding, but it is the best language we have to describe our conditions.

In other words, I put far more stock into man's ability to describe the status of our universe, using the language of science and mathematics, than I do in a supernatural being having created it for unknown reasons.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In other words, I put far more stock into man's ability to describe the status of our universe, using the language of science and mathematics, than I do in a supernatural being having created it for unknown reasons.

As do I, but it never hurts to keep in mind the distinction between describe and explain.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

As do I, but it never hurts to keep in mind the distinction between describe and explain.

Fair enough.

 

[logician]

I'm frankly amazed at how many people find his silly 'argument' coherent, much less meaningful.

What's silly about it, it is patently obvious.

 

[invisible chzbrgr]

Or that perhaps "god" is those laws rather than simply creating them.

If god is only the laws of nature, no one should have a reason to pray to them or expect them to help us or save us from death / perdition. (Unless it's a Laws-Plus! kind of god)

It brings to mind the theory of goodness where everything god does is inherently good because his nature is good.

It means he is either bound by his own standards (laws) or he makes them up as he goes!

If there is a truth in here, it's way too complicated to matter to our little lives...

 

[S-word]

IS THE UNIVERSE DESIGNED?

Of course it is. But the designer and creator of the space shuttle, (Who, by the way, is the image and likeness of the designer and creator of the universe) did not have the data or the nessessary infrastructure to design or create the space shuttle when he designed the first wheel from a round peice of timber.

All the billions and billion of creations by the designer and creator of the space shuttle, which led to the intricate and complicated society and technology needed for the creation of the space shuttle, were simply the expressions of the heights to which the mind of the designer and creator of the space shuttle, had evolved to at the time of each of those evolving creations.

 

[EverChanging]

I don't really know why someone would refer to the laws of physics as God. Aren't they, rather, our attempts to explain the nature of reality? Why call it God? That's just confusing.

Of course it is.

How do you know?

 

[no_spoon]

Well, would it be OK if I asked three (possibly leading) questions to get a feeling for where we stand in this thread at this point?

1) I gather most folks do not see anything that convinces them the Universe was designed, right?
2) I gather most folks feel the human race is at a point in its development where we know enough to reasonably form an opinion on whether the Universe was designed, right?
3) most folks don't mind differences of opinion on whether the Universe was designed, but do object when people offer weak or illogical proofs that it was, right?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

1) I gather most folks do not see anything that convinces them the Universe was designed, right?
2) I gather most folks feel the human race is at a point in its development where we know enough to reasonably form an opinion on whether the Universe was designed, right?
3) most folks don't mind differences of opinion on whether the Universe was designed, but do object when people offer weak or illogical proofs that it was, right?

Speaking only for myself, I'll go with:
1 - Yes
2 - Yes
3 - Yes, but I find it annoying (more than anything else) when someone tries to use science or math to support their position that the Universe was designed.

 

[Seven]

In the case of the universe, design's in the eye of the beholder.