luvluv

Jobar:

Well, I don't think that is self-evident, nor defendable as a matter of fact. Why would God choose to make himself hidden? If it is because, as many theists argue, out of a deference to free will, He possibly wouldn't want to be PERFECTLY hidden, such that a belief in Him would be absurd, but only SUFFICIENTLY hidden, such that a belief in Him is not mandatory.

I'd say He has done a pretty good job, in that to those who wish to see it in this way, the universe does appear completely natural and self-generated. To others, quite often just as informed but of a slightly different temperment, the universe looks to be without question the work of design.

Well, again, we have to consider why God would want to hide and to what end. If it is indeed in order to make room for free will, then it is not the case that we can't find Him. It is possible that we will find Him, as the Bible says, only "if we search for Him with our whole heart", not with a telescope or out of idle curiousity. (As much as I shudder to say such things in a thread where Koya is present. I fear the impending indignant backlash... j/k luv ya Koy .)

NothingbutSky:

Sure, but again the atheologian could then (and has already) posit that a multiplicity of universes, covering all logical possibilities, negates the need for a God to explain design elements in the universe. In such a multiverse, every combination of values for universal constant was bound to initiate, and we happen to reside in the one where all the values line up properly for life.

So, it is another catch-22. Any "design" or lack thereof, for the universe would magnify one of God's properties to the exclusion of all of his other properties. If one is too subtle for His claims for omnipotence, another is too facile for His claims to omniscience. One would presume an eternal infinte God to create a multiverse including every logical possibility, but such a multiverse would also eliminate the need for God.

I, for one, don't think you can make any predictions based on any one of God's attributes in isolation from the others, or, and most importantly in my view, in isolation from His purposes. An approach like mine is necessarily question-begging and therefore not much use in establishing the existence of God, but I think it is unavoidable and thus would probably entail that design cannot be used to establish or deny the existence of God in any complete or final sense. The design hypothesis is consistent with Christian theism but perhaps not proof of it. That's my thinking at present, I guess.

Wyrdsmyth:

Right, and then one could argue in such a universe that God obviously was not intelligent, because there is no subtlety in His work. He can't win for losing.

While I would tentatively agree here, and this is for everybody by the way, for me the point of the teleological argument has always been more to defeat naturalism than to establish theism. In broad terms, the teleological argument asks whether we are more justified in thinking that the universe is the product of an accident rather than the product of a purpose? And how does the answer to that question affect the proposals of theism and atheism. For me, the anthropic coincidences for the universe, along with the trillions upon trillions of beneficial accidents that went into the evolution first of life, then of the species, makes it impossible for me to believe it was all an accident. Some call this a lottery fallacy, but while it is true that one person is guaranteed to win any single lottery, any one who won hundreds of thousands of them would certainly be subject to suspicion. And as we have won hundreds of thousands of lotteries in the progression of the universe and of life, I for one certainly cannot believe that this is the result of an accident. No whatever this conclusion may mean for Christian theism, it certainly has to do away with naturalism, if it is conceded. In my view, the telelogical argument cannot make one a Christian, but it certainly could prevent one from being an atheist.

sandlewood:

Suppose one said that the universe in many respects appears designed, and argues for the best explanation of that appearance?

If it works for the argument from evil...

Conchobar:

Well, I don't think whether or not matter is distributed orderly is the only criterion by which we can assess whether or not the universe is orderly. Matter is managed by the physical laws in an orderly and predictable fashion. There appears a uniformity to nature that causes matter everywhere to coalesce into more or less a uniform pattern. The distribution of matter may appear chaotic but it is actually utterly predictable (generally speaking) and uniform in behavior under certain conditions.

Given the odds, I would be much more likely to posit an imperfect designer than randomness. To me, randomness is just not in the cards. The odds against are too great and I just don't believe in luck to such an implausible degree.

I don't claim to know the answers to your questions, but I find it more plausible to believe there are morally sufficient answers to those questions than to believe that we would even be here to ask such questions if a designer not exist.

Again, as I said to Jobar, it could be that He intends us to find Him with our will, not our idle curiousity or technological tools. It means something very severe and life-altering to find God, such that it will make or break your entire existence. So God has graciously arranged things such that those who find Him were looking for Him, and were thus prepared to come to grips with what His reality means. I happen to think that is very nice of Him, since everyone who idly searches for Him, not really intending to find Him, would have their lives violently uprooted if they happend to stumble upon Him in His whole actuality, and have His demands suddenly intrude upon their everyday life.

Koyaanisqatsi:

I'd actually agree.

A) Again, that the teleological argument does not succesfully or completely establish Christian theism, does not entail that it is not a sufficient defeater of naturalism. So it may not require that, in intellectualy honesty, one become a Christian, but it in my humble opinion would require that one could not be, in intellectual honesty, a confident naturalist.

B) If infinite regress really is impossible, as you seem to suggest, then doesn't that mean that eventually SOMETHING has to have a necessary existence? And, applying Ockham's razor, wouldn't it be unnecessary to multiply this cause? If behind the designer of the designer of the designer almost ad infinitum there would be, presumably, eventually a final cause, then aren't we perfectly within our epistemic rights to say, via Ockham's razor, that IF A FINAL CAUSE IS NECESSARY, that the one immediately previous to our existence is the only one we have a right to posit?

If a necessary being is necessary in the end to explain the existence and order of our world, then there is no need to posit an infinite or near infinite number of such beings where one would suffice.

So my question to you is a) do you think an infinite regress of causes is possible? b) if not, does that not assume that some entity is necessary? c) if so, what is the need to postulate a near infinite series of necessary agents if you admit that SOME agent must have the property of necessity? d) Why could one not just say, via Ockham's razor, that only one necessary being is required, and thus eliminate consideration of all the others?

I say this because this world would not seem sufficient to explain itself. So an explanation is required for the universe, and philosophically if infinite regress is impossible this explanation must have the property of necessity. But I don't see if this explanation requires the property of necessity, why the explanation needs an explanation. That would be needlessly multiplying causation.

Better to what end? Again, if you knew God's purposes completely you could begin to argue that you could fashion a better way to go about achieving them than the present state of affairs. But "better" in some purely convienient way, for human beings, is not necessarily better in God's view. It could be that the regeneration of limbs would remove some of the severity and finality of certain moral acts, thus making human beings less careful in their consideration of how they treated their bodies and the bodies of others. Thus while regenerated limbs would be nice for us, it might not be "best" for God's purposes.

I realize that this leads to the direct conclusion that we cannot necessarily draw any conclusions from design for or against the nature of God. Since we'd have to know His purposes to judge His creation. But I think we can nonetheless draw the conclusion that something other than nature exists, and that would seem to defeat naturalism in my view. Given that then Christian theism is a legitimate option, though perhaps not the only one.

Jamie_L

I think there are two separate issues: Design and Development Process.

A being with no needs for means could create a universe absent of design processes (and the accompanying evidence). Such a universe could still have evidence of design, however.

Our universe has all sorts of evidence of a development process. Non-creationists refer to this as evolution. Most atheists tend to argue that this process does not show evidnece of design, but in fact just the opposite: it shows evidence of lack of design. A powerful designer could make things work much better than evolution's current state of affairs.

Lack of a development process would not require a simpler universe or a universe devoid of evidence of design.

As I mentioned above, I believe this universe shows evidence of a development process. That it is permeated with "what appears to be design" is up for debate. What would a univesre which was designed by an omnipotent or near omnipotent God look like?

Well, it would take volumes to detail everything. For some examples (looking just at human "design"):

Humans wouldn't have appendices with no function that occasionally burst and kill them.
Humans would have spines much better suited for upright functioning.
Human childbirth wouldn't involve such great risk to child and mother.

And so on.

These things all have a clear development path that produced the current situation, but if they are evidence of design, they are evidence of poor design or intentional malice.

Jamie

luvluv

Well, speaking of the universe as a whole (which is actually where I wanted to take this discussion) there is no developmental process for the actual evidences of design, i.e., the anthropic coincidences. Values necessary for life happen to fall within the right parameters sans any developmental process. Galaxies and planets and all the rest form later ought of the original design, but there was no evolution of values towards the correct ones, and no evolution POSSIBLE unless the correct values already obtained. If the energy of the big bang, for instance, was off by one part per billion we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

So there is a good deal of design evidence that was not developmental. Besides that I would argue that it is consistent with Christian thinking that God would want His presence to be deniable in the interests of free will, so it doesn't surprise me that there is compelling reason both to believe and disbelieve in His involvement with the universe. We've all been given enough rope to hang ourselves, if that's what we want to do. Of course, this is hopelessly question begging, but it might explain the fact that you really cannot say, as a matter of fact, that an omnipotent God definitely would do this or that simply because He is omnipotent. You have to take into account his purposes.

But to press the point, this is what I am talking about when dealing the the catch-22.

Up until about 50 years ago, scientists DID BELIEVE that there was evidence of design and no developmental process. (At least in the universe). They held that the universe was eternal and static, and that it showed some design elements, and they thought the very fact that it was eternal and static indicated that there was no need for a God.

Which leads to another question, doesn't the Big Bang provide better evidence of God than would an "eternal" design, even though the Big Bang must allow for a developmental process. I mean, if you take away the developmental process in terms of the cosmos I would imagine there would be no evidence of the cosmos ever begining to exist. So again, wouldn't the committed atheist have a card to play no matter what God did?

I actually wasn't talking about the biological side of the design equation, but I guess we can get into that. I don't know a whole lot about it, though. I would only say to you that absent a designer, we could expect things not to work at all. As I understand it VARIED life appears on the earth's surface almost SIMELTANEOUSLY with the appearance of liquid water. How in the world does that happen absent a designer? Again, for me, the coincidences just pile up to confidently say, in intellectual honesty, to say it was all an accident. It would seem to me that simple honesty would make you at least consider the possibility that it was not an accident. That some of you truly believe that it is a settled issue that there was no intelligence involved is astounding to me. I could see positing a flawed or limited designer, but no designer at all? If something looks to improbable to be accidental, there is only one alternative that I can see: it wasn't. Whatever that means for Christian theism, it certainly does a number on atheism.

For that question I was only interested in responses about the nature of the universe, not human bodies. It's easy for me to see how the human body could be more convienient for us (though, again, without knowing God's purposes, that our bodies could be more convienient for us really amounts to nothing in my view).

What I want to know is what the UNIVERSE would look like if the Creator were truly omnipotent.

Wyrdsmyth

But if it fails to establish theism, does it defeat naturalism, then? Aren't they two sides of the same coin? If you are arguing that the life in the universe is very unlikely to have come about by 'accident,' isn't that simply the converse of saying it is very likely to have come about by 'design'?

Not if that one person lived for billions of years. See? Numbers can't lie, but accountants can. It's all in the presentation.

The problem with the teleological argument is really one of odds-making. How can we really say what the odds are, or what odds we've 'beaten'? This is what I was trying to get across earlier. We can't rewind the universe, to throw the dice again and do that a trillion times to see what the most likely universe is, and just how unlikely ours is. If one guy keeps winning a lottery... sure, we are justified in suspecting it is rigged. Why? Because we know what should happen, we know the odds. We can calculate them. With the universe, and life itself, we really can't be sure. How likely or unlikely is life -- or intelligent life? Can you (or anyone else) give me a number? How many earth-like worlds exist in the galaxy? How about all the galaxies? Given similar earth-and-sun conditions, how likely is life? Oh, you don't know? Guess what -- neither do I! None of us really know. Let's face it, arguing about how 'astronomically unlikely' life is on earth until we've gotten a better look at the rest of the universe is a lot like two guys living inside a cave their entire lives arguing about what the outside is like.

luvluv

Wyrdsmyth:

Not necessarily, one could be a deist, or posit finite godism. All the teleological argument does is posit the role of an intelligent and poweful designer. It doesn't have to be benevolent at all (though a case could be made that he wanted life to exist), or at all concerned with us personally, or even necessarily omniscient or omnipotent, just pretty-darn-niscient and wowza!-potent.

Well,

a) We won a good ten to twelve lotteries right off the bat, which would be those anthropic coincidences controlling the development of the universe. Those winning numbers were announed IMMEDIATELY, simeltaneous with the begining of the universe. So it would be a little odd for me to play the lottery for the first time, buy 10 tickets, and win all ten times.

b) I'd like to see the math worked out but I still think that if the odds were worked out, even if one had been drawing lotteries for as long as the universe has existed you still would not have the expectation of winning the lottery at least hundreds of thousands of times(and that's probably a low estimate).

We don't need a million universes. If we know that these things did not HAVE to happen, if there is no external constraint limiting or forcing this shape upon the galaxy, then it didn't have to be that way. All the constants could have had, on that view, any value, meaning (I suppose) the probability of it having any one value for any constant is zero. That all these constants line up within the specific parameters necessary for life, with such a ridiculously small margin for error (as withing the process necessary for the formation of carbon, for instance) should give you room to pause. There is simply no way that you can honestly say that there is no need to consider the possibility of a designer. Excuse my french, but it would seem to me on this issue that cognitive dissonance is not just for theists anymore.

Jamie_L

Ah. Sorry about that. I was thrown off by the OPs mention of means and ends and omnipotence. Now I think I see where the OP was going, and I think there are problems with the question it is asking.

I believe the OP confuses multiple meanings of the word "design". The key definitions that I believe apply are (taken from Meriam-Webster):

design:
*a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down
*the arrangement of elements or details in a product or work of art

Now, obviously an omnipotent being has no need for the first definition above. However, an omnipotent being certainly arranges the elements and details of the things he creates, even if that creation is instantaneous and without process.

When people talk of "evidence of design", I believe they are usually refering to evidence of the second definition. That is, the arrangement of elements and details appears purposeful.

Thus, I don't think there is any basis to say that things created by an omnipotent being would have no design. They could, or could not, depending on how the omnipotent designer wanted things.

Perhaps I'm not familiar with the arguement you are trying to counter.

To quote the OP:
I do not take issue with the fact that evidence of design is not evidence of God. I take issue with the notion that there is evidence of design.

Jamie

Koyaanisqatsi

luvluv, I hope you do know that I have nothing but respect for you, personally, it's just your arguments that I object to. And I loved "wowza-potent," btw .

Although I don't see why you've chosen to post these particular contentions in response to what I wrote, how would an "Intelligent Designer" defeat "naturalism?" Just as we are all intelligent designers (debatable on the "intelligent" part, but I digress against myself), and we are likewise part of nature (no matter how much our arrogance likes to pretend that we're not) why wouldn't the ID also be considered part of nature?

See, this is the paradox that can only be resolved by an assertion of a "first cause," that simultaneously gives rise to both creation and creator as a necessary conditional. This simply is not tenable, since it involves the illogical paradox of something creating itself that can only be surmounted by another illogical assertion.

To "defeat" naturalism, you would necessarily have to be arguing for an ID that is somehow outside of "nature;" a super natural being that necessarily cannot be considered in any way a part of nature.

If it is in any way a part of nature, then it is not super natural and thus does not "defeat" naturalism; yet for it to be super natural instantly invokes the "who created the creator?" infinite regress.

Actually, I'm arguing the opposite. The minute you invoke a super nature is the minute you invoke the infinite regress, since there can always therefore be a super super nature and a super super super nature, etc, etc., ad infinitum.

Since your implied goal is the "defeat" of naturalism, you must establish this super nature. The minute you do, however, it the minute you invoke the infinite regress that can only be surmounted by yet another assertion (the "first cause" or "necessary being").

What? No one is talking about the "right" to posit. You can posit anything you want, but implicit in that is taking whatever you posit to its logical conclusion (and logical beginning). There would not "presumably" be a "final cause" at all in an infinite regress; that's the nature of the infinite regress .

There is no beginning, middle or end to an infinite regress. That's why invoking it in order to solve one mystery only ultimately reveals the larger mystery ad infinitum, making the "solution" to the initial mystery irrelevant.

See what I mean? For example, let's grant your contention and state that there exists a super natural ID who somehow created our natural universe (just as we do whenever we drop bacterium in a petri dish). Then what and so what? All that would mean is a shifting in focus onto who created the creator, and its universe and then who created the creator of the creator and their universe, ad infinitum. It would never end (or begin, for that matter) and would only mean that what we currently consider "natural" would simply have to be augmented slightly to now include the "natural" elements of the super natural realm the creator exists in and the super super natural realm that the creator of the creator exists in, etc., etc., and we're right back at ground zero.

But a "necessary being" is not actually "necessary" just because we label it thus. Asserting the existence of a "necessary being" in order to circumvent a logical paradox is not tenable; it's ass backwards semantics employed illegitimately in order to circumvent a logical paradox and nothing more.

Saying something is "necessary" does not make it exist or even lend any credence to its possible existence. Since an infinite regress has no beginning, middle or end, it is therefore impossible to assert a "necessary first being" as its beginning. There is no beginning; thus there can be no "necessary first being."

Therefore, if you posit super nature in order to "defeat" naturalism and contend that a super natural being exists who designed that nature, you instantly invoke the infinite regress that gives rise to the paradox; the paradox which states there can be no "necessary first being" (or cause).

You're trying to circumvent this by saying, in effect, "I don't care what this invokes in the larger, logical sense, since the part I need answers my question," which is the same fallacious response that led Aquinas originally to his invalid argument.

It is if you invoke a super nature as an explanatory supposition, since the minute you posit super nature is the minute you posit the infinite regress. You can't have one without the other, unless you fallaciously assert that the super nature is it and there are no super super natures, ad infinitum.

How would you propose to limit such a thing, once you've posited it? It does no good to just say, "Well, I'm ignoring that part of it. It's none of my concern. I'm just concerned about...."

See what I mean? By positing a super nature you ipso facto posit the infinite regress inherent in the concept, thereby destroying your attempted purpose (to "defeat" naturalism), since such an infinite regress would only mean there is more to "what we consider nature" than already assumed.

At best it would simply mean a redefinition of the term and your super natural ID would instantly become identical to any of us, trapped as it would be in its own existential quandary.

The petri dish is a good example, since in your scenario, we're merely the bacterium in the dish; put there by a scientist who exists in his or her own set of existential dillemias identical to our own.

While it may answer your narrow questioning, it ultimately defeats it by revealing the irrelevance of it in answering any ultimate existential quandaries we may have. It just shifts the focus a little and nothing more; replacing one mystery with an even larger one ad infinitum.

No, it does not. Seeing or interpreting something as being designed does not necessarily imply a "designer" any more than it establishes one must be necessary. It's an assertion in order to avoid a logical paradox. All it means is that you see what you think is a design.

It doesn't discount it, to be sure, but that's of little relevance. You would have to establish that it would be impossible for the universe to exist without a designer.

Not just highly unlikely to the point where human intelligence considers it to be almost impossible, but literally impossible that the universe could exist without a designer.

That's the burden of proof and the standards necessary to "defeat" naturalism (and don't shoot the messenger for pointing that out ).

I "admit" no such thing. Indeed, my entire polemic is against such a notion for the reasons given.

The infinite regress is part and parcel to the concept, so there is no "need" to "postulate" it; it comes automatically when one posits a super nature.

Well, for one, Occam's Razor (for those following: a philosophical rule that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex) doesn't apply to your contention, since you are going from the simplest to the more complex by positing an infinite regress. You're doing the opposite of what Ockham intended.

Secondly, and again, asserting a "necessary being" exists in order to avoid a logical paradox is invalid. You must prove (and not through logic, mind you) that a "necessary being" must factually exist, not just assert that one must to avoid your own paradox.

In other words and again, you must establish that it is impossible that our universe exists without a "necessary being" in order for you to have legitimately established the requirement of said "necessary being."

Do you understand the differences I'm trying to illuminate here between academically speculating on something and establishing the impossibility of something so there is no other conclusion to arrive at? There is only one way to "defeat" naturalism and that is to conclusively establish that naturalism is impossible.

Until you do, then Occam's Razor is firmly on the side of naturalism, since your supposition is more complex than nature and not less.

Occam's Razor, by the way, is intended for competing theories, not speculation regarding what seems intuitively to be true to you. If that were the case, then we should simply apply the razor to the notion that the Great and Powerful Too RAH Loo magically blinked everything into existence and everything is the way it is because he wanted it that way.

"Sufficient" to whom and why would it need to "explain itself," setting aside the problem with the personification? It is you who are seeking an explanation, yes?

"Required" by whom? By you. You are the one seeking an "explanation" for the universe and in so doing, you are ignoring what is actually there in favor of a mystical being of some kind (presumably anthropomorphic in some manner, from what little you've presented) that must exist or else your supposition is wrong.

Do you see the problem here? You are presupposing a designer, because you think you see a design at work. Yet when you actually break down what evidence you've presented, one finds that it isn't evidence of design, but speculation regarding a design. What had you posted before? "If the big bang were off by one part in a billioin...?"

But the problem, of course, with your polemic is that the universe was not off by one part in a billion and we are here to "talk" about it.

So, instead of taking "what is" and basing your analysis on it, you're instead taking "what might have been" and then erroneously concluding, "therefore, ID."

In essence, you're simply saying, "It's so amazing that it did happen that it couldn't be anything other than on purpose!"

Sorry, but that's just not tenable. That's wish fulfillment. It is not "amazing" in the slightest to "it" (the universe) that it happened the way it happened, since it happened that way. Just because it strikes you (and all of us, no doubt, to varying degress) as amazing doesn't necessarily make it relevant to the question of the "true" origin or nature of the universe.

A flower is absolutely amazing, but that doesn't ispo facto mean "ID did it." It doesn't rule it out, either. In fact, it doesn't attest to anything at all other than you or I or somebody else finds it amazing.

To make it attestable, you would have to establish conlusively that it would be impossible for the flower to exist absent an intelligent designer. Yet, there is no way for you to do that accept through calls to "amazingness" (wowza-ness ?) and incredulity on your part that others don't just automatically equate a small chance of something happening in a certain way with the impossibility of something happening in a certain way.

I'm afraid it all goes more to your need for purpose than anything else, which is curious, because I don't see how the notion of an anthropormorphic "entity" of some kind who designed the universe in some manner ipso factorilly (?) gives your life purpose.

If the ID you posit has no vested interest in us (as necessary condition of "freewill"), then what difference does it make if you were the result of bacterium in a petri dish or bacterium that was placed in a petri dish?

Why wouldn't the exact same ideals of humanism, for example, be in place if no ID exists? Even your own christian upbringing surely instilled in you the notion that only you can bring purpose to your life; it just provides a false idol for you to direct it at, but even the most simplistic deconstruction of the christian cult dogma states that nothing you do in this life is of any consequence to what happens to you after you die; it only seeks to give you respite from your woes in a false manner, by making you think that your suffering and pain is somehow justified, because it makes you "blessed" in god's eyes.

Indeed, the thrust of the christian cult dogma is primarily concerned with the after life and has little to offer the living, other than simplistic humanist ideals of loving one's neighbor and behaving toward others as you would have them behave toward you. The only "mystical" or super natural quality to christianity comes once you've left this universe; i.e., once you're dead, which makes all of this completely irrelevant, IMO.

Once you're dead, how does the notion of an ID effect you anymore, unless you are implying that an ID also established "after life" conditions, which I don't see in anything you've written here (correct me if I'm wrong)?

Well, again, it's not "impossible" if one posits it, as you have. As to the "needlessly multiplying causation," that isn't a choice; that's inherent in the supposition of a super nature, since there is no way to limit it once it's posited (other than as you seem to be alluding to; i.e., fallaciously).

Better than what is. I sense issues of morality creeping up, which means we are no longer discussing a possible ID, but instead a purposeful ID intent on instructing us in some manner so as to give our lives "purpose" that you will contend is somehow absent without an ID of this nature, yes?

And I was right. I don't need to know "god's purposes" in the slightest to argue a better universe than the one we've got.

Look, you're positing an ID, not a god, right? You're positing that an ID created our universe the way it is; a being that set things up and into motion and that's the end of it, since we have "free will."

If not, then you're just positing a god and calling it by another name, so which is it? God or ID?

If ID, then pointing out the design flaws are simple and readily available, such as the one I presented about the human design flaw of not being able to auto-regenerate limbs. Other animals are capable of doing this and there is no destruction of the great balance of things and if we had the ability there would likewise be no destruction of the great balance of things.

Or are you saying that there is somehow a design purpose to my not being able to regenerate a limb? You're the one positing an ID, so you're the one who needs to answer that question direclty and not be using some cop out like, "the ID moves in mysterious ways, who are you or anyone to question...." blah, blah, blah.

It's your concept so you must fill in the blanks with something substantive, yes?

We're not talking about God, right? We're talking about a possible ID who is limited by our free will, right?

Which is it going to be?

What has that got to do with nature or the possible existence of an ID of what is?

Meaing that we are more careful now?

I don't see how not being able to regenerate limbs has stopped any immoral acts from happening, nor do I see how being able to regenerate a limb would cause any more "immoral" acts.

But then, that's the thrust of your fallacy; the "we can't foresee it, therefore it's true."

We couldn't be more reckless with our bodies than we are now and even if it meant "more recklessness" it would be irrelevant since it would have been part of the original design.

The problem is that now, when it's convenient, you turn to "what is" and assert that because it is what it is, it couldn't be any other way, based on a presupposition of omnimax qualities of a god who acted as the perfect arbiter; a post hoc, ergo propter hoc view of the universe.

If that's the case, then, the universe is set up perfectly as it is and there is therefore no need to even posit a god or ID, other than for moral reasons.

Morality has nothing to do with how atoms bond, so what's all this talk to begin with about an ID?

Who cares? The question is, could any of us design a better universe than the one we've got? The answer is, yes, we could.

Your question, however, is, "could anyone instill morality into humans or did morality spring naturally from human interactions?"

That's quite a different question, don't you think?

In other words, you never have been positing a possible ID for the universe, you've been positing a god who arbitrates human morality.

Indeed, it completely removes design (the physical "makeup" of the universe) from the whole equation and shifts it instead to "whence morality?"

Why? "His" creation is all around us to judge using our own free will, right? Indeed, if we don't judge "His" creation with our own free will, then it defeats the purpose of god's existence, since there would be no way for us to choose god, right? So, throw out free will, too.

No, we can't in the slightest! You haven't presented anything here to arrive at such a conclusion.

Indeed, just the opposite, since all you've done is asserted that this must be the case without providing any compelling reasons as to why.

Establish that a "natural" explanation is impossible and you're on the right track. Short of that, you will have done nothing but tried to convince yourself that it is necessary.

luvluv, I know you know that none of this legitimately follows from anything you've posted, so please, don't throw in the towel like this at the end.

Your biggest mistake, as I see it, was to confuse what you were actually arguing for (that morality must have been designed into us in some fashion) and leave out entirely the design of the universe from your analysis, since the one has nothing to do with the other (other than we wouldn't be here without a universe to exist in).

They just aren't linked in any significant manner, so stick to what is really at the heart of your investigation; the alleged purpose and/or genesis of human morality.

luvluv

Well, as I perceive it naturalism suggests that all phenomenae, even human behavior, can be reduced to the movement of fundamental particles. It suggests that, ultimately, all reality is reducable to physics. I suppose the conjecture of ID would only overthrow scientific or methodological naturalism. Scientists would henceforth have no reason to believe that any phenomenon could be explained without reference to an agent. Even if that agent could itself be explained in terms of nature, the enterprise of science would be undone. The reason behind the nature and order of the universe would not be because of chance or necessity, but of will, and thus science as such would be impossible.

So I suppose that the philsophy of naturalism would still be possible, but the practical scientific application of it would be done away with. If you admit an ID, you have to admit there is no reason to presume that there is an unintelligent DIRECT cause for things like evolution. You could formulate an indirect cause in the ID's make-up that lead him to create in this or that way which would be just as acceptable. (Which, in my opinion, is why scientists will never accept ID.) So at that point science could just as easily be reduced to theology. A question of why things are such and such a way could be answered only by asking ourselves why would the ID want them to be such and such a way.

So you could assume that the ID was natural, but you'd still have to abandon the view that irrational forces directly determine any phenomenae in the universe.

But in retrospect I don't know that I buy this. Naturalism usually posits that phenomenae are explicable in terms of irrational forces, or laws, governing mindless matter. So if the laws themselves are part of what the Designer has done, then He would necessarily have to be beyond nature. He is beyond any by which we would seek to constrain Him definitionally since He created or shaped those laws.

So in what sense could a Designer of the laws of the universe be "natural"? He cannot be explained in terms of any law of the universe, so in what sense could He be "natural" in the way the naturalist means it?

You could simply argue that the Creator was uncreated. The first cause IS the uncreated Creator, not something which brought about the existence of an Creator. Apologists do not argue that God created Himself, they argue that He is uncreated.

As I said before, inasmuch as this Designer created the laws of the universe, and naturalilsm depends on the fixedness and unchangeablity of the laws of the universe, a Designer would necessarily be outside of nature as we conceive it. He could alter natural laws as He saw fit, so how could He be constrained by them?

Okay, well my point is that there is an infinite regress either way. If we do not posit the existence of a God, then we must posit that every entity in the universe is causally dependant on another entity, ad infinitum.

So my question is do you think infinite regress is possible and acceptable as an explanation or do you not?

What makes the infinite regress of naturalism superior to the infinite regress of supernaturalism?

If you do not believe that an infinite regress is acceptable as an explanation either in the natural or the supernatural sense, then some necessary entity must be posited. However, this entity cannot be this universe since the universe began to exist, and necessary beings cannot not exist. Therefore any appeals to necessity must involve something eternal. And by Ockham's razor, there is no need to posit more than one eternal entity. In fact, if this entity is really NECESSARY then it would be a contradiction to ask for it's cause, so we wouldn't even need Ockham's razor, the question doesn't make any sense.

What's wrong with saying that God Himself is an uncreated final cause?

But the same would apply to you dropping the bacterium in a petri dish. We could have an infinite regress of causes for this event as well. So is infinite regress possible as a legitimate explanation or not? That's the big question.

No one would ever try to use a necessary being to explain an infinite regress, Koy! One usually posits a necessary being to AVOID an infinite regress. If there is a first cause, then there is no infinite regress by definition.

No, what I'm trying to say is that an infinite regress is invoked to explain ANYTHING whether we keep that regress occurs in the natural or supernatural realm. An infinite regress is either possible as an explanation or it isn't. My contention Koy is that you are stuck with an inifinite regress either way unless you assume that necessity is possible. And if necessity is possible we know that this universe alone is not necessary because it began to exist. So that tells us that EITHER there is a necessary existent outside of our realm OR there is an infinite regress of causes within this realm.

How is an infinite regress of causes avoided by limiting ourselves to nature?

It does imply a CAUSE for it's appearance as designed, and explaining that cause would result in an infinite regress.

No, I would only have to establish that it is nearly impossible to EXPLAIN WHY the universe is at it is without a designer. The design elements cry out for an explanation, not simply in their existence, but in why they are as they are.

I'm not saying that this is a sound argument totally demolishing naturalism. Only that it is a darn good argument which should prevent someone from having a confident, unshakeable belief in naturalism. It should certainly rule out the confident belief that the supernatural is impossible.

Again, why doesn't it come automatically when one posits simply nature?

I actually think Occam's Razor is that one shouldn't multiply causes without necessity. I don't think I have posited an infinite regress. I have posited an uncaused eternality. By definition an uncaused agent isn't involved of a causal regress of any kind.

But if an infinite regress is a paradox, there is a paradox regardless of how we choose to cook our chicken. Naturalism involves an infinite regress as well.

If infinite regress is impossible, there must be a necessary being. Naturalism cannot avoid the infinite regress any more than supernaturalism, so if an infinite regress is impossible, then it would be impossible for this universe to exist without a necessary being.

Pardon me for correcting my elders, but I think you are confusing Ockhams razor with the concept of parsimony. Ockhams razor, if I remember correctly, generally deals with not giving more than one cause when one cause will do. Parsimony deals with complexity as such. Now it is true that anytime you multiply causation you automatically make a theory more complicated. However, I can apply Occam's razor to limit ourselves to positing a necessary being and thus make my contention more parsimonious than yours, which involves an infinite regress of causes. An infinite regress is just messy (probably more so, in terms of complexity) as is a necessary being.

In other words, there would seem to be no reason at all for the universe to begin to exist, if explanation is limited to this universe.

If God cannot create Himself the universe cannot create itself. Therefore the universe must be involved in an infinite regress. God can escape this because He is UNCREATED, as He never began to exist. The universe did. So if necessity is called for, the universe excludes itself from consideration via the Big Bang.

Frankly, I don't buy it and never will. Unless we know of some force constraining certain fundamental values to the incredibly small range that supports life, we do have a right to ask "why is it thus?" I simply put no stock in the naturalists position which states that "why" is unjustified ONLY IN RESPECT TO THIS QUESTION, and to no others.

For no other phenomenon will a naturalist be satisfied with the explanation: "It just is, don't question it." That sounds like the top-down cult of naturalism forcing an explanation down the throats of the cult-worshipping naturalist. The pontiff from on high says "Don't ask this question." and the True Naturalist won't ask it. But telling me not to ask the question is not an answer for the question.

It is totally legitimate to ask why the universe is the way it is.

Why couldn't a finite ID have a reason for not allowing your limbs to regenerate? Intelligent designers design break-away chairs and windoes that break easily for movie productions. (You know this). There could just as easily be a reason for the fact that our limbs don't generate. Maybe he just wasn't interested in making us perfect. Maybe he didn't apply himself that day.

Either one could have purposes not intelligible to us. An ID could simply have stopped caring and moved on.

This will be done as soon as you admit that infinite regress is impossible, if you believe it is. If it is, then something is necessary. And an infinite regress is involved in a purely naturalistic explanation of the universe.

That was not my point. My point is that there is no way of moving from "this does not work as well as it could" to "this was not designed". Nothing designed by us works as well as it could but they are all designed. An ID could simply have limitations or apathy as the reason for some design flaw and God could have moral reasons. But in either case, design flaws do not indicate the lack of a designer.

Whew! I'm done for the day, be back tommorow.

Conchobar

These posts are dreadfully long and despite the excessive word numbers often fail to get a comprehensible point across.

How come they are so bloody long? Doesn't anyone here have a day job?

Conchobar

Wyrdsmyth

Okay, well as far as I know theism as a term can embrace all of the above. I was addressing the accident/design dichotomy, and how the sort of cosmic design you were talking about -- universe-making -- is at the extra-natural level. Establishing a supernatural universal-designer is, as far as I'm concerned, establishing a god or at least what most of us would think of as a godlike being (regardless of which particular god of a religion or philosophy, if any).

True... But what I am still asking is... Is your analogy really accurate and appropriate? The numbers may not change, but the way they are presented can be radically different from one model to another. What are these anthropic coincidences? Can you be any more specific?

My point was that the incredulity factor needs to be tempered with actual statistics. Too many teleological arguments rely on the "How unlikely is that?" intuition without really going into the odds, or how they were ever calculated in the first place.

Let's not limit our imaginations, though. How do we know that life can only exist as we see it here? Carbon-based? How can we reasonably conclude that if the universe had been different, no life could exist? Perhaps the table of elements could have been different, yes... but then perhaps the way life formed would have been different, too. Does it look like the existing conditions were there to provide for life, or that life formed upon the existing conditions?