The Great Architect of the Universe

[Terry Sampson]

So I could say that all complex things in existence consist of an existing material.

I'm with you so far. Now, the big question, IMO, is: "What the heck is that stuff?" I used to know an atheist who proposed that the world/universe/cosmos is boundless and eternal and consists of that stuff moving through space over time at a constant speed. He proposed that the stuff consisted of indivisible parts, i.e. true atoms, that were literal points of mass, i.e. having none of the three common dimensions (length, width, or thickness). And, according to the guy, the mass of each point can and does vary.

 

[Samael_Khan]

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.

Well, anything seemingly random should be left out of the equation, considering that artists can make things look random if they want. Like abstract painting. There might be a vague aspect of design but really the creator is creating something random on purpose. I do it on occasion. It is random art with no intention behind it. But a n ID proponent would have to leave these examples out of the equation too as it is just begging the question.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I'm with you so far. Now, the big question, IMO, is: "What the heck is that stuff?" I used to know an atheist who proposed that the world/universe/cosmos is boundless and eternal and consists of that stuff moving through space over time at a constant speed. He proposed that the stuff consisted of indivisible parts, i.e. true atoms, that were literal points of mass, i.e. having none of the three common dimensions (length, width, or thickness). And, according to the guy, the mass of each point can and does vary.

I certainly cannot answer that question. I don't know enough about that stuff.

 

[PureX]

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?

What exists of "God", is the mystery. What we call that mystery, and how we conceptualize it is up to us. Many people, now days, call that mystery "God", and conceptualize God as some sort of highly intelligent 'spirit being'. But what God actually is, or even IF God actually is, remains the profoundest of mysteries to us.

The mystery itself, exists, because of the way the human brain functions, and thereby cognates it's experience of being, ... and it's ability to generate questions that it is unable to answer to it's own satisfaction.

 

[Samael_Khan]

What exists of "God", is the mystery. What we call that mystery, and how we conceptualize it is up to us. Many people, now days, call that mystery "God", and conceptualize God as some sort of highly intelligent 'spirit being'. But what God actually is, or even IF God actually is, remains the profoundest of mysteries to us.

The mystery itself, exists, because of the way the human brain functions, and thereby cognates it's experience of being, ... and it's ability to generate questions that it is unable to answer to it's own satisfaction.

That is a good explanation of it from my view.

 

[PureX]

I'm with you so far. Now, the big question, IMO, is: "What the heck is that stuff?"

The "stuff" is what we humans call "energy", though we have no idea what energy actually is: what it's "made of", if anything, or how it does what it does and doesn't do what it doesn't do remains unknown to us. There is energy, and there are the rules (limitations) that "design" the expression of that energy. And the result is all that is.

But what is "energy"? And what/who imposed those limitations (rules) on it that results in all that is? And to what end?

These are the really big questions that we cannot answer except through our own imagination, and faith, and the trial of life.

 

[Skwim]

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,

EXCUSE ME! Anyone who would conclude that we don't know of anything in the world that looks designed but isn't designed is begging the question. Outside the natural assembly of parts we find in nature there is absolutely no reason to conclude there is any kind of "designer." Take the snowflake with its exceedingly orderly geometric shape. The ice crystals that make up snowflakes are symmetrical (or patterned) because they reflect the internal order of the crystal’s water molecules as they arrange themselves in predetermined spaces (known as “crystallization”) to form a six-sided snowflake.

"The intricate shape of a single arm of the snowflake is determined by the atmospheric conditions experienced by entire ice crystal as it falls. A crystal might begin to grow arms in one manner, and then minutes or even seconds later, slight changes in the surrounding temperature or humidity causes the crystal to grow in another way. Although the six-sided shape is always maintained, the ice crystal (and its six arms) may branch off in new directions. Because each arm experiences the same atmospheric conditions, the arms look identical."
source​

And that's it. There's no designer patterning each snowflake. So to conclude "then there must be a design behind creation"---a purposeful enterprise---is a logically unsound leap of the imagination.

. 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.

No, you can't use an analogy to deduce a truth in another context. All you can do with an analogy is to make a comparison or correspondence. In no way does an analog confer existence to any part of its target.


.

 

[Terry Sampson]

The "stuff" is what we humans call "energy

I call it "Spirit". Why? Because, IMO, in a boundless, eternal world/universe/cosmos, if it ain't Spirit, anybody who says God is a Spirit has stepped off the edge of Reality into pure fantasy. Either it is God or God and gods are subsets of the set of all movable parts in the world/universe/cosmos. I can't imagine any thing that is neither nothing (i.e. Space) or something (i.e. the stuff of which the world/universe/cosmos consists).

Why does it do what it does? Because, I say, in a boundless, eternal world/universe/cosmos, it can't do anything other than what it does. And if, by some odd happenstance, one could come up with a reasonable alternative to doing what it does, it would have done it.

 

[PureX]

I call it "Spirit". Why? Because, IMO, in a boundless, eternal world/universe/cosmos, if it ain't Spirit, anybody who says God is a Spirit has stepped off the edge of Reality into pure fantasy. Either it is God or God and gods are subsets of the set of all movable parts in the world/universe/cosmos. I can't imagine any thing that is neither nothing (i.e. Space) or something (i.e. the stuff of which the world/universe/cosmos consists).

Why does it do what it does? Because, I say, in a boundless, eternal world/universe/cosmos, it can't do anything other than what it does. And if, by some odd happenstance, one could come up with a reasonable alternative to doing what it does, it would have done it.

These are interesting points. I have often though of energy as a form or expression of "will". The will that something happen, as opposed to a lack of will, and nothing happen. But it's hard to comprehend will, alone. As a force unto itself. Especially when that "will to happen" is being governed by a designed intent.

 

[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.

problematic is an understatement. I would say it takes about 500 msec. thought to destroy it

Cool that you realize that.

ciao

- viole

 

[Samael_Khan]

EXCUSE ME! Anyone who would conclude that we don't know of anything in the world that looks designed but isn't designed is begging the question. Outside the natural assembly of parts we find in nature there is absolutely no reason to conclude there is any kind of sentient "designer." Take the snowflake with its exceedingly orderly geometric shape. The ice crystals that make up snowflakes are symmetrical (or patterned) because they reflect the internal order of the crystal’s water molecules as they arrange themselves in predetermined spaces (known as “crystallization”) to form a six-sided snowflake.

"The intricate shape of a single arm of the snowflake is determined by the atmospheric conditions experienced by entire ice crystal as it falls. A crystal might begin to grow arms in one manner, and then minutes or even seconds later, slight changes in the surrounding temperature or humidity causes the crystal to grow in another way. Although the six-sided shape is always maintained, the ice crystal (and its six arms) may branch off in new directions. Because each arm experiences the same atmospheric conditions, the arms look identical."
source​

And that's it. There's no designer patterning each snowflake. So to conclude "then there must be a design behind creation"---a purposeful enterprise---is a logically unsound leap of the imagination.



No, you can't use an analogy to deduce a truth in another context. All you can do with an analogy is to make a comparison or correspondence. In no way does an analog confer existence to any part of its target.


.

And I agree with you.

The reason why I asked the OP is that ID proponents use analogy as a "logical" way of proving that a god must exist.

But it seems to me that that is self defeating to some religions, such as the Abrahamic ones, because if we are using analogy to conclude what is true, then why are they ignoring other conclusions those analogies would lead to.

So analogy shows me that the more complex a design is, such as world building in video games, the more people have to be involved, so therefore multiple Gods is a logical conclusion which contradicts their view. The same goes with everything created by a creator is made from a substance, so what did God make everything out of.

So I am exploring whether their reasons for saying that there must be a creator will lead them to conclusions that they won't agree with.

Inadvertently ticking off people who are against Intelligent Design is a bonus.

 

[Samael_Khan]

problematic is an understatement. I would say it takes about 500 msec. thought to destroy it

Cool that you realize that.

ciao

- viole

Do you find that that is a common argument made by those who propose intelligent design? In your experience on this forum.

Also, do they frame it in such a problematic way?

 

[viole]

Do you find that that is a common argument made by those who propose intelligent design? In your experience on this forum.

Also, do they frame it in such a problematic way?

yes, but that is because I do not know any proponent of stupid design, for some reason, even though stupid design, at least prima facie, could also be an explainer of why there is something instead of nothing.

So, to insist in calling design intelligent, to account for the ontology of something, without explaining why that is supposed to be an intelligent thing to do, should also activate our question begging detectors.

But in general, proponents of design, no matter how intelligent design is supposed to be, do not like to think too much about their arguments, because that might prevent them to drink the theistic kool aid in full confidence.

Ciao

- viole

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I certainly cannot answer that question. I don't know enough about that stuff.

This following Tablet can give many eye opening thoughts. The size of creation surpasses any concept we have apart form the multiverse theory, which would fit this tablets vision.

Thus you may enjoy reading this, is is the Tablet of the Universe by Abdul'baha. It is a provisional translation from the Arabic, so it may not be accurate in its English.

I see it is the most comprehensive scripture on creation yet given, I also see science should embrace a study of this tablet.

Tablet of the Universe

This is one Scientists first look at it

One Physicist’s first Look at Abdu’l-Baha’s Tablet of the Universe

Regards Tony

 

[Shad]

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)

You are missing the first cause argument and time. Invoking a chain of causes only leads to infinity. Time is the constraint upon endless causes leading to the first cause which many attribute to God. Keep in mind eternal is a time reference not a state of being outside of time.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

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)

I understand it this way:
The basic building block of the universe existed prior to the universe.
It existed in eternity.
At the creation of the universe, time came into existence.
Both time and the physical material of the universe exist outside of eternity.
Yet, the underlying essence of everything in the universe came from the basic building block that existed prior to it’s creation. And that underlying essence exists within everything. It cannot be seen. Just like people could not see atoms and electrons 100 years ago, this essence cannot be seen today.
But someday it may be seen.

Also, you could possibly have numerous gods which could result from your definition of god. Yet, there can only be one, for me, because my definition of god includes the attribute of omnipotence, which would logically exclude any other gods.

 

[osgart]

The question I have is why does energy never increase? Apart from purposeful reactions, and collisions of energy, energy always decreases til it reaches a minimum. Granted it conserves and spends slowly enough that we are able to exist. But what caused the initial highest energy state from which all things proceeded? It seems there must have been an ultimate beginning to the stuff we observe!, Or, the universe is on one long cyclical self perpetuating string which I think is highly unlikely.

This leads into the question of getting something from nothing. It seems that a lot is riding on quantum mechanics being the eternal operational norm of the universe. And everything we see emanates from the quantum. At a glance I do not think the quantum is the eternal process.

So even if you arrive at an ultimate beginning as some theorems suggest that you do, why invoke God as the one who initiated it all? We are living in a vast void with all the odds of life existing whatsoever stacked against us. The universe is mostly hostile to life.

Another intuition that I have is that intelligence can only come by way of intelligence thus making intelligence a fringe eternal property of existence. Granted that the intelligence I am thinking of is deeply flawed, haphazard, reckless, and inefficient.

Lastly, The stuff of the universe is wasteful, toxic and extremely inefficient. So I would not call it designed.

If God wanted humans to think that life is meant to be, this universe tells us the exact opposite. So I sit at neither extreme of belief but definetly toward the middle road.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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)

I find in Scripture that everything in existence comes into existence from God's spirit as per Psalms 104:30.
In other words, God supplied the abundantly needed dynamic energy to create the material realm of existence.
Everything spawned by God's spirit, His energy force.
Kind of like a power grid from a Power Plant which supplies the needed power for something to function.

 

[stvdv]

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).

We humans seem very limited, compared to this immense universe.
So obviously (to me) chances are slim we can unravel the mystery behind this universe.

Nothing comes from nothing is a worldly view. But there can be other dimensions, where maybe exist other realities "something came from nothing"

When I see this universe our line "Nothing comes from nothing" might be a "human truth", but I don't see it as a Universal Truth.

I think the "God concept" was invited by a smart and humble guy, who figured out, that all this "stuff" is way out of his league.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

These are interesting points. I have often though of energy as a form or expression of "will". The will that something happen, as opposed to a lack of will, and nothing happen. But it's hard to comprehend will, alone. As a force unto itself. Especially when that "will to happen" is being governed by a designed intent.

.... and to me that energy force as a form of expression of God's will to happen, His purpose to create the material realm.
Or, as Isaiah wrote about the greatness of God's 'might', His being strong in 'power' - Isaiah 40:26
Thus, God's spirit, His high-density dynamic energy force created the material world - Psalms 104:30