Intelligent Design and Physical Law

Norsefire said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Design is the result of a sapient life form that is motivated to produce a product. Motivation is an emotional state and emotion is a survival mechanism resulting from biological evolution. Biological evolution requires the universe to be present.

In other words, to attain motivation you have to have emotion. To attain emotion you have to be a temporary instance of evolved sapience. To attain evolution, the universe has to be in place.

That's why it's illogical.

Norsefire said:
Require? Sure, they don't require anything. But there's no point in finding answers based on "requirements"; we find answers based on what they are. Therefore it's still possible and logical to suppose a creator. It's illogical to assume one, but it's not a ridiculous or illogical concept that our universe was designed. We aren't supposed to bother with "require"
Click to expand...

You misunderstood and as you can see from my above response it is quite illogical. Here is what's happening. As a human being you have this notion of 'design' in your mind. You see a building and think a 'designer' did that. Then you turn to the universe and think a 'designer' did that. What just happened is a psychological event called anthropomorphism. It's when humans project their qualities onto things that aren't human. That's why we have Bugs Bunny, talking toasters, mother nature, father time, the grim reaper, and 'God'. Design is very human and you're projecting it on the universe when it's not really there.

Norsefire said:
And that order exists.
Click to expand...

Thats incorrect. Do you know what order is objectively? Go ahead and define it.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
Design is the result of a sapient life form that is motivated to produce a product. Motivation is an emotional state and emotion is a survival mechanism resulting from biological evolution. Biological evolution requires the universe to be present.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make it illogical at all.
I never suggested the designer would have to be eternal or infinite; just that our universe was designed.

Thats incorrect. Do you know what order is objectively? Go ahead and define it.
Click to expand...

I define it as a certain set of ways that something behaves, acts, or is governed by, or operates in a certain manner. Therefore, the universe has an order, and order can be a design.
 
Norsefire said:
That doesn't make it illogical at all.
I never suggested the designer would have to be eternal or infinite; just that our universe was designed.
Click to expand...

A designer would have to be a universe-bound (i.e. the universe is already there) temporary biological life form. That puts rather strict limitations on resources, mental faculties, boundaries, and of course time.

Norsefire said:
I define it as a certain set of ways that something behaves, acts, or is governed by, or operates in a certain manner. Therefore, the universe has an order, and order can be a design.
Click to expand...

Then you have defined nothing. I am asking what IS order (objectively and technically)... not a vague high level description.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
A designer would have to be a universe-bound (i.e. the universe is already there) temporary biological life form. That puts rather strict limitations on resources, mental faculties, boundaries, and of course time.
Click to expand...
Matter and time might not operate the same way in different universes; they might not even be there.

However, again, this doesn't eliminate or in any way detract from the notion of a creator. It's merely some form of explanation as to his nature.

Crunchy Cat, if we humans one day make a universe, doesn't it make creation true for the universe we created? And any life within that universe that supposes a creator? Just think about that.



Then you have defined nothing. I am asking what IS order (objectively and technically)... not a vague high level description.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'd say anything which must operate in a certain way. That's order.
 
Norsefire,
I know you asked for this thread to be purged, however I've moved it to Pseudoscience. I know technically you are asking "Philosophical" questions but at least there is room to play in the Pseudoscience section in regards to theory. This thread would have been deleted however I do think that people either want to answer the question or at least ponder notions of the universe somewhere.
 
If there is a natural law, then the Bohmian interpretation, will hold all physical interactions as a universal secret of truth.
 
Norsefire said:
Matter and time might not operate the same way in different universes; they might not even be there.
Click to expand...

I agree and it doesn't seem very relevant.

Norsefire said:
However, again, this doesn't eliminate or in any way detract from the notion of a creator. It's merely some form of explanation as to his nature.
Click to expand...

The explanation of "it's" nature makes it far too limited to design and implement a universe.

Norsefire said:
Crunchy Cat, if we humans one day make a universe, doesn't it make creation true for the universe we created? And any life within that universe that supposes a creator? Just think about that.
Click to expand...

We're not going to create a universe.

Norsefire said:
Ok, I'd say anything which must operate in a certain way. That's order.
Click to expand...

Doesn't work. Disorder for example must operate in a certain way.
 
The universe is not fine-tuned for human life. For instance, there are no other habitable planets nearby. Also, in another kind of universe, a different kind of life could evolve. Also, one can alter various so-called constants and still form universes that resemble ours in most ways.
 
spidergoat said:
The universe is not fine-tuned for human life. For instance, there are no other habitable planets nearby. Also, in another kind of universe, a different kind of life could evolve. Also, one can alter various so-called constants and still form universes that resemble ours in most ways.
Click to expand...

It seems rather fine-tuned to me, after reading up on how perfect the forces and etc are


Spidergoat, let's say we one day develop real AI. We create a virtual world for this AI to live in. We create their world with its own set of laws, and watch them bicker amongst each other.

The significance of that is to show that it is ENTIRELY unknowable as to the origins of the universe. It could be right under our nose, and we don't know it
 
You can speculate all you want, but we have to go with what seems logical. The forces that make up the universe are far from perfect. We have stars exploding all the time that sterilize any potential life within a huge area. We have black holes seeming to destroy entire galaxies. There is only about .0007 percent carbon in the universe, the basic constituent for life as we know it. Visiting another planet at anything close to the speed of life means leaving your own kind thousands of years in the past, and it would take generations to get there. Even on our own planet, catastrophic disasters happen that kill just about everything on the surface. We happen to live within a tiny window of possibility, and there is no guarantee that tomorrow it will still be here.
 
spidergoat said:
You can speculate all you want, but we have to go with what seems logical. The forces that make up the universe are far from perfect. We have stars exploding all the time that sterilize any potential life within a huge area. We have black holes seeming to destroy entire galaxies. There is only about .0007 percent carbon in the universe, the basic constituent for life as we know it. Visiting another planet at anything close to the speed of life means leaving your own kind thousands of years in the past, and it would take generations to get there. Even on our own planet, catastrophic disasters happen that kill just about everything on the surface. We happen to live within a tiny window of possibility, and there is no guarantee that tomorrow it will still be here.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was referring more to the very atoms we are made of, the very forces the universe operates on. Fine-tuning.

And we can't go with what seems "logical" because we don't know what logical is.
 
In a different universe there could be different life. There is no evidence that this universe is "fine-tuned" for life.
 
spidergoat said:
In a different universe there could be different life. There is no evidence that this universe is "fine-tuned" for life.
Click to expand...

The problem, again, is that there is no way of knowing what "fine-tuned" is. We are both making assertions.

The way I see it, our universe either began naturally, or was created. I can't see any other possibilities.

As I am an agnostic, I consider it an unknown.
 
Or our universe was the result of the collapse of a previous universe. Given your assumption that something previous (a creator) can exist, that previous thing could be any number of things.
 
spidergoat said:
Or our universe was the result of the collapse of a previous universe. Given your assumption that something previous (a creator) can exist, that previous thing could be any number of things.
Click to expand...

That would suggest an infinite regression, which just doesn't make sense.

Anything can be any number of things at face value, it's about categorizing them. Regardless of how the universe began, the only two categories are

That it was created
OR
That it came to be naturally

I don't consider either illogical or anything, it's just that they both have no evidence.

Off topic, but I could've sworn you used to be a mod. Am I losing my mind?
 
This is exactly on-topic, as far as I can tell. Creationism is also an infinite regression. What created God, and where could he get his intelligence to create a universe? Besides, as far as we know, the early universe was in a state of maximum chaos, God had no way of knowing what would come out of it. Furthermore, he would be destroyed in the very process of creation.
 
spidergoat said:
This is exactly on-topic, as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...
I was referring to my question.
Creationism is also an infinite regression.
Click to expand...
I am not referring to Creationism
What created God, and where could he get his intelligence to create a universe?
Click to expand...
An equally valid argument against natural beginning: what created nature? Why does it act as it does?
Besides, as far as we know, the early universe was in a state of maximum chaos,
Click to expand...
For whatever within.
God had no way of knowing what would come out of it.
Click to expand...
Are we suddenly trying to infer what "God" knows and doesn't know?
Furthermore, he would be destroyed in the very process of creation.
Click to expand...
How so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top