My 2 cents.......

M

Michael J.

Registered Member
Ok, here are the only 2 theories i think are logical on how we "became"...................


1. Design by an intelligent being
2. Happened by random chance

What are the differences between the two creators?

Characteristic: God/\ Super Universe

Transcendence: Yes/\ Yes

Eternal: yes/\ Yes

Creation of Universe: Designed/\ Random

Intelligence: High/\ Unintelligent

What we see in the table is a comparison of the two possible types of creators. Both creators must possess certain characteristics in common, such as being eternal and being transcendent to this universe. However, the naturalistic creator must be "stupid" and must have created our exquisitely-designed universe through some sort of random process. For some reason, the atheist chooses to believe that the universe arose randomly by the action of a stupid creator, instead of seeing the obvious - that a well-designed universe would most likely come into being through the actions of an intelligent designer. Let me give you an example. I show you a computer and ask you to make your best choice as to how it came into being:

Designed and put together by intelligent human beings.
Random computer parts were put into a large box and the parts soldered randomly by spraying molten lead into the box as it was rotated. This process was continued many times until the computer happened to be produced.
 
Designed and put together by intelligent human beings.
Random computer parts were put into a large box and the parts soldered randomly by spraying molten lead into the box as it was rotated. This process was continued many times until the computer happened to be produced.
Click to expand...

This argument was refuted over 200 years ago. Get with the program.
 
I can't be bothered. Hume beat this theory into a quivering mess:

http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~celiasmi/courses/old_courses/WashU/Phil110/class8.html
:Argument from Design: (np) [FAQ] 1. An argument most notably
forwarded by the Reverend Paley which brought us the "watchmaker"
analogy. At basis, this argues that the complexity and good design
seen in natural systems could only be attributed to a superlative
designer. Centuries ago, David Hume argued that one can only separate
designed from non-designed entities via experiential comparison and
contrast. Hence, since we only have one universe, we have no point of
reference to argue that the universe is designed (or not designed).
More recently, {Richard Dawkins} has written an excellent summary of
at least one way in which good design does not imply the existence and
action of a designer. See {fallacy}. 2. A self-evidently true
proposition which {evolutionists(2)} seem unable to comprehend.
[conn., {TAE}]
Click to expand...

Hardly does Hume justice, but then, who can summarize Hume? :)

http://www.ediacara.org/jargon.html

Are there any other theories explaining how we "became"?
Click to expand...

"Became"? Could you be a bit more specific about what you're asking for?
 
Originally posted by Michael J.
What we see in the table is a comparison of the two possible types of creators. Both creators must possess certain characteristics in common, such as being eternal and being transcendent to this universe. However, the naturalistic creator must be "stupid" and must have created our exquisitely-designed universe through some sort of random process. For some reason, the atheist chooses to believe that the universe arose randomly by the action of a stupid creator, instead of seeing the obvious - that a well-designed universe would most likely come into being through the actions of an intelligent designer.
Click to expand...
Hmm… your argument and manner of speech seems familiar.

Regardless; No one is suggesting that the Universe occurred entirely at random and no atheist would suggest it was created by any being, stupid or otherwise.

The Universe contains certain laws, to which everything within conforms. As to the origination of these laws there is a strongly held hypothesis that they all derive from a single law (the Unified field theory). As to the origination of that… who knows, perhaps it has always existed. Or, perhaps it is caused by the coalescence of probabilities.

If there is anything beyond this Universe it stands to reason that the “Meta-verse” likewise operates due to certain intrinsic laws. Theists carry the unreasonable assertion that behind each veil we will find God. The problem is, each time science is able to tear away the veil we find more naturalistic explanations but no God.

Let me give you an example. I show you a computer and ask you to make your best choice as to how it came into being:

Designed and put together by intelligent human beings.
Random computer parts were put into a large box and the parts soldered randomly by spraying molten lead into the box as it was rotated. This process was continued many times until the computer happened to be produced.
Click to expand...
This, of course, is just the watchmaker argument in new clothing. I just posted this argument in another thread but I’ll repeat it here for your benefit:

The watchmaker analogy really doesn’t work... a proper analogy would be a world where watch components were scattered almost everywhere we looked across the universe and where these components had a tendency to combine naturally into various configurations. In such a world it would not be strange that watches existed.

The argument also reverses the proper order, assuming first the way things are and then calculating the odds of them occurring that way… which is why the outcome seems so impossibly improbable. It begins with the outcome as a necessity, which is not correct. It also ignores that many of these factors are dependant upon each other.

To demonstrate: Take a deck of cards and lay them out in a row. Now, you just accomplished a statistical “impossibility” if we take the result as necessary. Note that the probability of that particular series occurring is 1 in (52!).

Or 1 in 80,658,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

So I guess it didn’t happen.

~Raithere
 
"Became"? Could you be a bit more specific about what you're asking for?
Click to expand...

Why this universe has such "perfect" laws to sustain life.
And why there is actually a universe, which raises the question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"
 
Michael, a note of advice, your in the realm of atheists, and you know what that means....
Click to expand...

Yes, it means your arguements will actually have to make sense to be considered, unlike a Christian board where I could say "fdhsf ehfiodfh khdslfeywh fdhsldg gfyshrf dhk ofhsl ekzhocx, ew hfidskld. Isn't God great!" and have everyone agree with me.

Just refer to any of Whatsupyall's posts to see what not to do when you're here. And welcome to sciforums =)
 
Last edited:
Why this universe has such "perfect" laws to sustain life.
And why there is actually a universe, which raises the question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"
Click to expand...

To say that because we can ask these questions, there must be a creator, is circular. What if your parents had not met? Would this then mean that some higher power must have made them meet, to make you, to make the question possible? It's a bit egocentric. Just because you search for some purpose to the universe does not mean there is one. It's just human nature to want a reason, to feel important.
 
Why this universe has such "perfect" laws to sustain life.
Click to expand...

Common objections to this idea:

1) Could a universe have other properties and constants that would make life impossible? ie. can these laws be any other way?

2) Are these the only set of laws that could sustain life, or just the only set of laws that could sustain this <i>type </i> of life?

3) Why could there not be an infinite array of universes that all have varied properties? Naturally, life would occur in the ones that are like this one.
 
Yes, it means your arguements will actually have to make sense to be considered, unlike a Christian board where I could say "fdhsf ehfiodfh khdslfeywh fdhsldg gfyshrf dhk ofhsl ekzhocx, ew hfidskld. Isn't God great!" and have everyone agree with me.
Click to expand...

Now, now. He seems sincere, amiable and doesn't use caps. Lets hold the sarcasm. For a while.
 
Michael J.,

For some reason, the atheist chooses to believe that the universe arose randomly by the action of a stupid creator, instead of seeing the obvious - that a well-designed universe would most likely come into being through the actions of an intelligent designer.

I think you would agree that God must also be "well-designed" and perfectly suited to his holy environment. How then do you explain God's existance? By your logic, you'd "see the obvious"- that a well-designed creator "would most likely come into being through the actions of an intelligent designer".
 
Why this universe has such "perfect" laws to sustain life.
And why there is actually a universe, which raises the question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"
Click to expand...

"Perfect" laws? Do explain.

Why is there a universe? If there wasn't, would you be asking the question?
 
Now, now. He seems sincere, amiable and doesn't use caps. Lets hold the sarcasm. For a while.
Click to expand...

I was actually taking a shot at whatsup :p
 
And why there is actually a universe, which raises the question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"
Click to expand...

Interesting question. Any theist would have to answer it as well. Or atleast a version of it. Why is there a God? Why isn't there no God?

The answer, I think, is that there is no reason because it is an indubitable, a priori observation: "There's stuff".
 
Michael,

Ok, here are the only 2 theories i think are logical on how we "became"...................
Click to expand...
One of your characteristics is Eternal. This is an acceptance on your part that something can be eternal, i.e. that something can possess the property of infinity. Your first logic error is to assume that only a creator can be eternal. You are constructing your premises to suit the result you want to prove. Your entire argument fails on this first hurdle.

I’ll reconstruct your premises with appropriate corrections.

Your first assumption is that the universe was created. Since you accept the possibility of eternity then you must apply that property equally to other relevant speculations, which must rule out that a created universe is the only possibility. So now the argument changes somewhat.

Here are 3 speculations on how we "became".

1. The universe was designed.
2. The universe spontaneously appeared.
3. The universe has always existed.

What are the differences between the three proposals?

Characteristic: The existence of a designer: The possibility of effect without cause: Infinite.

Transcendence: Yes: Yes: No or Not applicable.

Eternal: Yes: No: Yes

Creation of Universe: Designed: Spontaneous: Unnecessary.

Intelligence: Required: Not applicable: Not applicable

(1) Requires an incomprehensibly super intelligent super being to exist with powers of creation beyond our imagination and who has existed forever, and for which we have no precedent or experience or knowledge.

(2) Requires that events can occur without apparent cause and while quantum physics does indicate this is a possibility and some experiments do indicate some evidence, it has yet to be shown that it could be possible on such a colossal scale as the entire universe.

(3) Requires that the universe has always existed.


Note that (3) also does not require a dependence on concepts for which we have no precedent or knowledge.

One might object that we do not have any experience that something can be infinite but in fact we do. The fact that anything exists must mean that something has always existed, either the universe or super beings, or something else. If there was a time when nothing existed then nothing could ever have begun and hence we could not be here. Hence something with the property of infinity must exist. Unless of course one wants to believe that a universe can appear from nothing, and while that cannot be entirely ignored it certainly does not sit well with anyone’s intuition.

So now which looks like the more acceptable speculation? An incomprehensible super intelligent being whose existence on one can explain or simply "what is" has always been?

Of course the idea of infinity and the big bang appear to be at odds but then we don’t know the cause of the big bang and we don’t know if the observed big bang was or is the only big bang. In the same way that we used to think that the earth was the universe and the sun, moon and stars revolved around us. At MIT there is the hypothesis that the big bang is just one of an infinite number of big bangs.

Well that's my 2 (3) cents, again.
 
Originally posted by Michael J.
Why this universe has such "perfect" laws to sustain life.
And why there is actually a universe, which raises the question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"
Click to expand...
And why do some presume a "Why" and ask "Why" rather than "How"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top