The Great Architect of the Universe

[Samael_Khan]

Many, by observing nature, see it as extremely complex and orderly. And they use the analogy, that since we do not know of anything in the world that looks designed but isn't designed, then there must be a design behind creation. Also we know that in the real world " nothing comes from nothing" (ammended: Everything in existence comes into existence from an already existing material), therefore everything had to come from something and had to be created.

Lets give them that that analogy is true for arguments sake.

But if analogy works for there being an intelligent designer then surely I can use analogy to carry the logical conclusion further.

From analogy we could deduce that the world has AT LEAST one designer. Since we know that complex designed things in this world are not necessarily the result of one persons designs. With regards to video games, in which whole worlds are created, multiple people are employed to create one of these games (world). Therefore to say that the world was designed answers that there was at least one designer but possibly and most likely (due to the complexity of creating complex video game worlds) multiple designers, hence multiple Gods. Through analogy I would think that it is most likely that multiple Gods exist rather than one.

Also, the analogy that nothing comes from nothing in the real world (ammended: Everything in existence comes into existence from an already existing material), concludes that everything had to have been made from an eternal material as well, since nothing just pops out of thin air and everything is constructed from existing materials. So using this analogy, there has to either exist an eternal material apart from the God(s) that he/she/it created the world from or everything existed was made using the being of the God(s), therefore everything is the God(s).

Is this use of analogy logical and consistent with the usual use of analogy to prove that an intelligent designer exists? And if it is logical then why wouldn't this logic refute your beliefs like some explain that the use of these types of analogies logically refute the argument that a God doesn't exist?

(Correct me if I am understanding the ID argumentation wrong)

 

[Thief]

the evidence is in the spin......the rotation

if the bang had been a simple ...bang
the pulse would have been a hollow sphere of energy
expanding equally

that is not what we see when we look up

I say....as I have done so for years......

the primordial singularity was set into spin BEFORE the bang

done so by the pinch and snap of God's Fingers

 

[Samael_Khan]

the evidence is in the spin......the rotation

if the bang had been a simple ...bang
the pulse would have been a hollow sphere of energy
expanding equally

that is not what we see when we look up

I say....as I have done so for years......

the primordial singularity was set into spin BEFORE the bang

done so by the pinch and snap of God's Fingers

So I will grant you that. What about the other two analogies though? The conclusion that there might be multiple Gods and that the source of all that exists must have been made from an eternal material?

 

[viole]

Many, by observing nature, see it as extremely complex and orderly. And they use the analogy, that since we do not know of anything in the world that looks designed but isn't designed, then there must be a design behind creation. Also we know that in the real world " nothing comes from nothing", therefore everything had to come from something and had to be created.

Lets give them that that analogy is true for arguments sake.

But if analogy works for there being an intelligent designer then surely I can use analogy to carry the logical conclusion further.

From analogy we could deduce that the world has AT LEAST one designer. Since we know that complex designed things in this world are not necessarily the result of one persons designs. With regards to video games, in which whole worlds are created, multiple people are employed to create one of these games (world). Therefore to say that the world was designed answers that there was at least one designer but possibly and most likely (due to the complexity of creating complex video game worlds) multiple designers, hence multiple Gods. Through analogy I would think that it is most likely that multiple Gods exist rather than one.

Also, the analogy that nothing comes from nothing in the real world, concludes that everything had to have been made from an eternal material as well, since nothing just pops out of thin air and everything is constructed from existing materials. So using this analogy, there has to either exist an eternal material apart from the God(s) that he/she/it created the world from or everything existed was made using the being of the God(s), therefore everything is the God(s).

Is this use of analogy logical and consistent with the usual use of analogy to prove that an intelligent designer exists? And if it is logical then why wouldn't this logic refute your beliefs like some explain that the use of these types of analogies logically refute the argument that a God doesn't exist?

(Correct me if I am understanding the ID argumentation wrong)

First off: you say nothing comes from nothing. So, two questions:

1) what do you mean with “coming from”?
2) what makes you think there was nothing to start with.

I am aware that, unlike most theologians, I am not an expert of nothing, but it would be interesting to deeply analyze your argument.

ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

So I will grant you that. What about the other two analogies though? The conclusion that there might be multiple Gods and that the source of all that exists must have been made from an eternal material?

picture yourself as the First
the First in mind and heart

Someone had to be First

and yes.....you can do this

the statement ….I AM!
is profound

I believe it to be synonymous to......Let there be light

and then realizing ...there is no One else
what do you do?...….you attempt to be in more than one place at a time
and you can

BUT....you are talking to your Reflection
and hearing only your Echo

SO.....you have nothing else to work with but the substance you created

and here we are

if you like the notion of angelic forming before us......in spirit
ok
but that would be a separate topic

 

[Samael_Khan]

First off: you say nothing comes from nothing. So, two questions:

1) what do you mean with “coming from”?
2) what makes you think there was nothing to start with.

I am aware that unlike most theologians, I am not an expert of nothing, but it would be interesting to deeply analyze your argument.

ciao

- viole

Firstly, I should rephrase that statement haha! I have read people saying "nothing comes from nothing". I should rather say that "nothing we observe in existence has come into existence from nothing and everything in existence comes from something". Thanks for making me think about this.

Therefore:

1) "coming from" means "came into existence". So we do not know of anything appearing out of nothingness.

2) This analogy presupposes that there was something to start with. So there wasn't nothing to start with.

A deep analysis is what this argument needs.

 

[PureX]

(Correct me if I am understanding the ID argumentation wrong)

Design is basically an imposition of limitations, or parameters, that cause the flow of existential energy to achieve a specific result or set of results. As opposed to the non-achievement of perpetual randomness Thus, the presence of existential design implies intent. Presumably, that intent being the result of that activated design process. The number of "designers" is logically irrelevant, as the assumption that more than one is likely, or required, is based on the limitations of the human intellect, which has no bearing on the intellect of any possible "designer(s)" (we are not the designer). However, since great intelligence is required to recognize and understand the complexity of existential design, we do generally assume that this complex design result would likely have required a highly intelligent designer.

 

[Samael_Khan]

picture yourself as the First
the First in mind and heart

Someone had to be First

and yes.....you can do this

the statement ….I AM!
is profound

I believe it to be synonymous to......Let there be light

and then realizing ...there is no One else
what do you do?...….you attempt to be in more than one place at a time
and you can

BUT....you are talking to your Reflection
and hearing only your Echo

SO.....you have nothing else to work with but the substance you created

and here we are

if you like the notion of angelic forming before us......in spirit
ok
but that would be a separate topic

So why couldn't multiple people have been first rather than someone?

I get your I am statement. It is as if Isuddenly realised he was self aware.

What is my reflection reflecting from and what is creating the echo (unless you were being metaphorical here)?

What did I create the substance from?

 

[Mock Turtle]

But there are some things that might look as if designed but actually are not and have just come from natural processes, such as tidal forces forming pebbles on the beach having all sorts of rather symmetrical shapes, and things like basalt columns having hexagonal shapes:

Why Is The Giant's Causeway Hexagonal?

I've mentioned before that I have a saucer-shaped stone (as per common UFO depiction) that apparently formed by water erosion in a cave - being trapped in a side pocket of a water passage. It is very symmetrical and one might have supposed it to have been turned on a lathe. I know it wasn't since I have another from the same location that is not so symmetrical.

 

[viole]

Firstly, I should rephrase that statement haha! I have read people saying "nothing comes from nothing". I should rather say that "nothing we observe in existence has come into existence from nothing and everything in existence comes from something". Thanks for making me think about this.

Therefore:

1) "coming from" means "came into existence". So we do not know of anything appearing out of nothingness.

2) This analogy presupposes that there was something to start with. So there wasn't nothing to start with.

A deep analysis is what this argument needs.

so, let’s focus on the “coming from” part. Because that is the interesting one.

This, in order to make sense, entails an asymmetry. A temporal asymmetry. Something was not, and after that something was. Ergo, a time context which agrees with our intuitions. Something that flows in one direction and it is not part of “something” itself.

Is that correct?

ciao

- viole

 

[Samael_Khan]

The number of "designers" is logically irrelevant, as the assumption that more than one is likely, or required, is based on the limitations of the human intellect, which has no bearing on the intellect of any possible "designer(s)". However, since intelligence is requires to recognize and understand the complexity of existential design, we do generally assume that this complex design result required a highly intelligent designer.

So then if we are limited intellectually, maybe the only reason why many of us think that there is an intelligent designer is possibly because of our limited intellect?

 

[Terry Sampson]

the source of all that exists must have been made from an eternal material?

If you had written: "consists of" rather than "must have been made from", I'd have agreed.

 

[Samael_Khan]

But there are some things that might look as if designed but actually are not and have just come from natural processes, such as tidal forces forming pebbles on the beach having all sorts of rather symmetrical shapes, and things like basalt columns having hexagonal shapes:

Why Is The Giant's Causeway Hexagonal?

I've mentioned before that I have a saucer-shaped stone (as per common UFO depiction) that apparently formed by water erosion in a cave - being trapped in a side pocket of a water passage. It is very symmetrical and one might have supposed it to have been turned on a lathe. I know it wasn't since I have another from the same location that is not so symmetrical.

The Giant's Causeway looks awesome!

I would agree with you here. I am just thinking that theists use the argument for intelligent design using analogy, yet i suspect that the reason why they use those analogies could possibly lead to logical conclusions that contradict the religion that they promote.

For instance, we know that all intelligent designers use existing substances to create complex things. Therefore what was the eternally existing substance that God made everything from. Was it his own body and therefore are we all a part of God? According to the logical progression of their argument of course.

 

[PureX]

But there are some things that might look as if designed but actually are not and have just come from natural processes,...

Natural processes are "existential design parameters" doing what they apparently exist to do.

... such as tidal forces forming pebbles on the beach having all sorts of rather symmetrical shapes, and things like basalt columns having hexagonal shapes:

Everything has a "shape", resulting from the design parameters that effected it's creation. The metaphysical significance we humans ascribe to various shapes is of consequence only to us.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Natural processes are "existential design parameters" doing what they apparently exist to do.
Everything has a "shape", resulting from the design parameters that effected it's creation. The metaphysical significance we humans ascribe to various shapes is of consequence only to us.

Well it seems rather random to me - in that one stone turned out to be almost entirely symmetrical and most others didn't. Or was it chosen to be so? That is God in action?

But (in bold) this is precisely what many of the ID proponents use to justify their beliefs.

 

[PureX]

So then if we are limited intellectually, maybe the only reason why many of us think that there is an intelligent designer is possibly because of our limited intellect?

Clearly, we consider ourselves to be "intelligent" animals, and yet we are not fully able to comprehend the complexity of existential design. So, most of us assume that the "existential designer" (whatever that entails) must be, or must have been more intelligent than we are.

 

[Samael_Khan]

If you had written: "consists of" rather than "must have been made from", I'd have agreed.

Well, I am talking about something coming into existence. Everything in existence comes into existence from something already existing. And also this is with regards to complex things. So I could say that all complex things in existence consist of an existing material.

 

[Samael_Khan]

so, let’s focus on the “coming from” part. Because that is the interesting one.

This, in order to make sense, entails an asymmetry. A temporal asymmetry. Something was not, and after that something was. Ergo, a time context which agrees with our intuitions. Something that flows in one direction and it is not part of “something” itself.

Is that correct?

ciao

- viole

I stated in another post the below:

"Everything in existence comes into existence from something already existing. And also this is with regards to complex things. So I could say that all complex things in existence consist of an existing material."

The argument that "nothing comes from nothing" is an argument I have heard theists make. And now that I am discussing this further with you guys, it seems like quite a problematic statement.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Clearly, we consider ourselves to be "intelligent" animals, and yet we are not fully able to comprehend the complexity of existential design. So, most of us assume that the "existential designer" (whatever that entails) must be, or must have been more intelligent than we are.

If a God exists then he is definitely more intelligent than us.

But then couldn't the conclusion that there is a creator in the first place be the result of our limited human intellect?

 

[PureX]

Well it seems rather random to me - in that one stone turned out to be almost entirely symmetrical and most others didn't. Or was it chosen to be so? That is God in action?

It was "chosen to be so" by the limitations and parameters imposed on the flow of existence as it related to those particular instances (as well as to all others). Almost nothing is the result of random/chance.

Think of a dozen marbles clattering down an inclined plain covered by an obstacle field of projecting pegs. Each marble hits a peg and moves to the right or left of it based on the control parameters of the direction of gravitational pull, marble's course and momentum relative to the peg's position is immobility, the smoothness of the peg's and the marble's surfaces, the marble's resistance against the inclined plain and the resultant spin, and so on. All these parameters dictate what the marble will do when it encounters the peg. And none of it is the result of chance, unless the effect of the parameters becomes so slight that it cannot effect the momentum of the marble, downward. And the marble is finally able to fall to either the right or the left of the peg, equally. THEN, chance will decide, and the result will have been RANDOM.