Design with no designer?

[Schn]

You’re overlooking the obvious answer, that things appear to have a purpose of surviving and thriving, because without that apparent purpose, they would not reproduce. Evolution kills this so neatly.

 

[Greg27]

Evolutionary biology seems to propose this in the sense complexity arises through time via natural selection and genetic mutuation. Organs like the eye for example, which were once argued to be so complex they could only be God’s handiwork, are now believed to arise from evolution acting over billions of years.

Moving from the world of biology to the universe itself, we see beauty in the laws of nature and in the results of these laws (like organised galaxies, planets and stars). Yet scientists are very reluctant to appeal to God or a cosmic mind of some sort to explain this order, though most admit it is puzzling. Could the universe have arisen from nothing, appearing ‘designed’ but with no designer?

I think the order of the universe, like the order of life, demands an explanation. Whether God is the best explanation is a contested issue.

 

[Schn]

Evolutionary biology seems to propose this in the sense complexity arises through time via natural selection and genetic mutuation. Organs like the eye for example, which were once argued to be so complex they could only be God’s handiwork, are now believed to arise from evolution acting over billions of years.

Moving from the world of biology to the universe itself, we see beauty in the laws of nature and in the results of these laws (like organised galaxies, planets and stars). Yet scientists are very reluctant to appeal to God or a cosmic mind of some sort to explain this order, though most admit it is puzzling. Could the universe have arisen from nothing, appearing ‘designed’ but with no designer?

I think the order of the universe, like the order of life, demands an explanation. Whether God is the best explanation is a contested issue.

It definitely demands an explanation. God is one of the worst explanations possible, because it solves nothing. If the universe deserves an explanation, surely the creator of the universe also deserves an explanation. Creationists often evade this, but it’s just infinite regress terminated by special pleading.

 

[tonyrey]

Evolutionary biology seems to propose this in the sense complexity arises through time via natural selection and genetic mutuation. Organs like the eye for example, which were once argued to be so complex they could only be God’s handiwork, are now believed to arise from evolution acting over billions of years.

You are arguing in effect that we have to choose between “God’s handiwork” and evolution…

Moving from the world of biology to the universe itself, we see beauty in the laws of nature and in the results of these laws (like organised galaxies, planets and stars). Yet scientists are very reluctant to appeal to God or a cosmic mind of some sort to explain this order, though most admit it is puzzling.

It is not within the remit of science to answer metaphysical questions. Many scientists are theists but they rightly confine themselves to scientific issues…

Could the universe have arisen from nothing, appearing ‘designed’ but with no designer?

There is no evidence whatsoever for self-creation.

I think the order of the universe, like the order of life, demands an explanation.

You are dead right! You can add rationality, truth, freedom, purpose and love to that list!
Whether God is the best explanation is a contested issue.
If we are here to decide for ourselves what to believe and how to live it is bound to be a contested issue…

The alternative is to believe we are cogs in an immense machine - unless you are prepared to sit on the fence! But if you do that you’re not going to get very far… and you may fall off on the wrong side…

 

[tonyrey]

It definitely demands an explanation. God is one of the worst explanations possible, because it solves nothing. If the universe deserves an explanation, surely the creator of the universe also deserves an explanation. Creationists often evade this, but it’s just infinite regress terminated by special pleading.

You imply that there is another explanation which is self-explanatory. Will you let us know what it is? If not, how do you avoid an infinite regress of explanations?

 

[tonyrey]

Well I’m thinking that to survive is purpose enough.

Maybe, though, an animal is here for a human to kill and eat so the human can survive. That’s it’s purpose. And a valid one at that, don’t you think?

I’ll go out on a wing here, but I think everything’s purpose on this earth, that is not human, is here for humans. That’s what I think so don’t listen to me as fact

It is anthropocentric to believe everything exists for us! A more reasonable view is that all life is valuable and even inanimate matter is valuable because otherwise there would be no life.

But some “things” are more valuable than others. There is a hierarchy of values based on functions. A person is obviously more valuable than a parasite! (unless they happen to coincide…

One thing is certain. Life is immensely valuable (as you suggest with your neat little phrase “survive and thrive”). If anyone denies it ask him why he is hanging around if his life is valueless and purposeless. Just for the fun of it? But wait a minute… Isn’t fun valuable? :whacky:

 

[Schn]

You imply that there is another explanation which is self-explanatory.

I don’t. I said it deserves an explanation. I didn’t necessarily say there is one. Not that I don’t think there is one. Which I do.

Will you let us know what it is?

No.

If not, how do you avoid an infinite regress of explanations?

I can talk to you about cosmology, but I don’t think it would go very far. So I’ll try this line. It can be terminated by “I don’t know”. Admitting ignorance is not a bad thing. Substituting a fake explanation to get people to stop asking questions is illogical.

 

[tonyrey]

You imply that there is another explanation which is self-explanatory.

I don’t. I said it deserves an explanation. I didn’t necessarily say there is one. Not that I don’t think there is one.

You seem to want to have it both ways!

Which I do.

If that explanation is not self-explanatory it must require another explanation - which requires another explanation… ad infinitum…

Will you let us know what it is?

No.

Then why bother to discuss the matter?

If not, how do you avoid an infinite regress of explanations?

I can talk to you about cosmology, but I don’t think it would go very far. So I’ll try this line. It can be terminated by “I don’t know”. Admitting ignorance is not a bad thing.

It’s an excellent quality. In fact anyone who doesn’t is an idiot…

Substituting a fake explanation to get people to stop asking questions is illogical.

You need to establish your assumption that it is a fake explanation. Otherwise it is worthless…

 

[Schn]

You seem to want to have it both ways!


If that explanation is not self-explanatory it must require another explanation - which requires another explanation… ad infinitum…

“It deserves an explanation” means that efforts should be made towards finding the correct explanation, now “it needs an explanation right now”.

Then why bother to discuss the matter?

I don’t need to let you know what I think is the correct explanation because it is not required in showing that the designer theory is false.

It’s an excellent quality. In fact anyone who doesn’t is an idiot…
You need to establish your assumption that it is a fake explanation. Otherwise it is worthless…

I’m going to be lazy and say the burden of proof lies with the ones who assert an alternative to the null hypothesis. You.

 

[tonyrey]

You seem to want to have it both ways!
If that explanation is not self-explanatory it must require another explanation - which requires another explanation… ad infinitum…

Yet you think the correct explanation is already available if we are to go by your statements…

Then why bother to discuss the matter?

I don’t need to let you know what I think is the correct explanation because it is not required in showing that the designer theory is false.

In other words you wish to be invulnerable!

You need to establish your assumption that it is a fake explanation. Otherwise it is worthless…

I’m going to be lazy and say the burden of proof lies with the ones who assert an alternative to the null hypothesis. You.

Nothing shall come of nothing… You have to establish that it is a null hypothesis…
And of course to do that you need to reveal your assumptions…

 

[Think_About_It]

Many people do not understand evolution.

You ain’t kiddin’.

for Chance rather than Design. Which do you rely on in your daily life - coincidence or intelligence?

I can’t continue to have this conversation when you have the most elementary understanding of chance and probability. Look up the ways in which chance, probability, and natural selection explain the ordering of events. If you can get your hands on a copy of Richard Dawkins’ “Why There Almost Certainly is No God,” It would be a great benefit to your understanding. One book it can be found in, if not on the internet, is in Chrristopher Hitchens’-edited “The Portable Atheist,” found in all good bookstores.

 

[tonyrey]

Which do you rely on in your daily life - coincidence or intelligence?

Your supercilious remark reveals your lack of understanding of the issue at stake. What do you know about possible universes?
BTW Which do **you **rely on in your daily life - coincidence or intelligence?

 

[Think_About_It]

Your supercilious remark reveals your lack of understanding of the issue at stake. What do you know about possible universes?
BTW Which do **you **rely on in your daily life - coincidence or intelligence?

Your lack of understanding reveals your lack of understanding- no agenda to speculate about here. If you can tell me the difference, correctly, between chance and probability and how they releate to natural selection (my position), I’ll continue to discuss this. Otherwise, it’s not worth the effort.

 

[buffalo]

Science has assumptions - things like “there is a phsycial universe” and “it can be investigated,” etc. I don’t think it’s possible to start out with no assumptions, but some are better than others. We can see the physical universe, therefore we should assume that it exists. We can manipulate and isolate matter, therefore we should be safe in imagining that we can investigate it. The assumption that the universe is designed is too lofty a leap from what we know. It’s like seeing a cloud in the shape of an animal and saying somebody drew it there. That could be the case, but why imagine authorship behind something when the matter of fact is that it simply just is. I didn’t say anything to indicate that design would be the only evidence of God; I was merely showing a circularity in thinking with those terms in mind.

Modern science starts out handicapped at the outset by its own definition. It is limited to the 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time.

 

[buffalo]

Who gets to determine what is and is not designed? Stalagmites look designed to me, but that doesn’t mean that the mole people made it their job to carve spikes in caverns across the world.

,Here is a quick way:

Patterns:

Hurricanes, tornadoes, sonwflakes, sand dunes,

Designs:

Based on language and symbols.

Designs always will contain patterns, but patterns never contain designs or symbols.

Already covered - designs need a designer. Conclusion: all design comes from a mind. We see design all around us. It came from a mind. The mind of God.

 

[Think_About_It]

Modern science starts out handicapped at the outset by its own definition. It is limited to the 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time.

5 senses are better than none, and 3 dimensions are better than being outside of those dimensions. If by handicapped, you mean imperfect, I agree (I’m sure you wouldn’t have the audacity of saying science cannot reveal things which are helpful to us); If by handicapped you mean useless, you would have your work ahead of you in explaining this. No injury to my position, Buffy.

 

[Think_About_It]

,Here is a quick way:

Patterns:

Hurricanes, tornadoes, sonwflakes, sand dunes,

Designs:

Based on language and symbols.

Designs always will contain patterns, but patterns never contain designs or symbols.

Already covered - designs need a designer. Conclusion: all design comes from a mind. We see design all around us. It came from a mind. The mind of God.

Arbitrary dichotomy - why do you get to decide what looks designed? You’ve only seen the designs of people; you have no idea what a gods design would look like if you saw one. You’re judging aginst information you don’t have…

 

[buffalo]

5 senses are better than none, and 3 dimensions are better than being outside of those dimensions. If by handicapped, you mean imperfect, I agree (I’m sure you wouldn’t have the audacity of saying science cannot reveal things which are helpful to us); If by handicapped you mean useless, you would have your work ahead of you in explaining this. No injury to my position, Buffy.

Properly reasoned empirical science has a lot to offer. But it must understand its limitation and its domain. Science too often wanders into philosophy. Take a aluminum foil cardboard tube - go outside and look thorough it. That is what science offers, see what it misses?

 

[tonyrey]

Your lack of understanding reveals your lack of understanding- no agenda to speculate about here. If you can tell me the difference, correctly, between chance and probability and how they relate to natural selection (my position), I’ll continue to discuss this.

If you think chance, probability, and natural selection explain the ordering of **all events in the universe **you are exposing your ignorance - and that is the topic being discussed: Design versus non-Design. It’s ironic; you claim to be rational yet you put your faith in irrational processes instead of rational beings!

Otherwise, it’s not worth the effort.

You have already opted out by failing to answer post 28. No doubt in spite of your efforts you could find no satisfactory response…

 

[Think_About_It]

Properly reasoned empirical science has a lot to offer. But it must understand its limitation and its domain. Science too often wanders into philosophy. Take a aluminum foil cardboard tube - go outside and look thorough it. That is what science offers, see what it misses?

Of course, and I agree that it misses much. But with out senses and in these three dimensions, what can we learn about God directly, and not second hand (second hand = given knowledge). Nothing. Given knowledge is like the telephone game; it’s unreliable.