WinAce

Without any starting preconceptions or bias, how might we distinguish between a universe created by an unknown natural phenomena, an omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent being, or merely very powerful/knowledgeable/non-malevolent being(s)? Let's use only this main assumption, since it's equally compatible with all three possibilities:

Each will eventually result in some type of life that is capable of asking these questions

Now, what might we reasonably expect to find in universe A, universe B, and universe C?

Here are my 'predictions' for universe A. Note that most would logically follow merely by knowing the limitations of natural, unintelligent processes; although I know these are all true, similar and specific predictions could be made only by assuming naturalism.

(1) Mostly chaotic space: a great majority of dead/failed stars, black holes, supernovae, and other phenomena incompatible with life resulting from the 'wrong' configuration; of those star systems with planets, most will be gas giants and others, where no life as we know it can exist; the remaining few 'lucky' stars will have planets with water and other requisites for life

(2) Mostly chaotic biology: long and difficult history of life on those planets where it does appear; species branching off in apparently random directions, resulting in many dead ends; gratuitous extinctions, surprisingly strange anatomical and genetic structure based completely on pre-existing structures rather than ground-up redesign; life adapting to exploit all useful energy sources, no matter how ridiculous (from deep-sea vents, to nylon vats, to dark caves with geothermal springs, to parasitising the intestinal tract and blood stream); the evolutionary 'arms race' creating 'irreducibly complex' yet mutually hostile functions such as the immune system and malaria parasite; the 'most intelligent' life being merely a variation on some other life, with its closest relative also being quite intelligent, somewhat self-aware and possessing similar abilities like tool-building and warfare-waging

(3) Mostly chaotic beliefs: Intelligent life appearing and desperately looking for answers where none yet exist, with no science or error-correcting methodology available to find them; hundreds of thousands of different religions being made up, all claiming to be divinely inspired; no agreement even among the same religion on what would appear to be core doctrine; no strong, unambigous evidence for the existence of the deities of any of said religions; pre-existing faith considered more important than evidence capable of convincing someone with no faith; 'evolution' of religion, with the most likely to successfully convert becoming established while the others die out, with the dominant religion being very markedly different every few centuries; doctrines like intolerance of other religions, teaching to children as divine truth, eternal damnation for unbelievers, and using 'god of the gaps' arguments to explain the scientifically unknown becoming selection advantages, whereas tolerance (leading to non-evangelism), showing all religions to children as equally valid, no claims on the afterlife and skepticism becoming DISadvantages; the most popular religions will thus be the most evangelical, culturally linked, threatening, and 'explanatory' (... Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism?)
(3.1) The existence of a large-scale apologetics movement: using the exact same methods to defend every single religion, which obviously all can't be true, against the exact same types of contradictions and incoherencies, as well as using purely anecdotal, subjective and often hoaxed 'evidence' to prove each one of their mutually exclusive gods, to make people keep their pre-programmed faith by unsuccessfully trying to reconcile what is very obviously universe A with universe B or C by invoking ad hoc hypotheses galore

If you consider this question for a while without dismissing it out of hand or assuming that your belief is 100% right and nothing can contradict it, I confidently predict you'll become either a deist, agnostic or atheist. Of course, few people ever do that because 100% certainty is quite comfortable and so much more preferable to uncertainty.

Now, are there any fulfilled predictions that logically follow from universe B or C? ... Come to think of it, those that might logically follow from 'perfect, omnipotent, omniscient being making the universe' are all falsified, making apologetics like the Original Sin and Curse, 'Free' will, 'mysterious are the ways of God' and somewhat blind faith necessary to explain them. Exactly what we would expect to find if universe A was the right model

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: WinAce ]</p>

Jobar

Hello WinAce- welcome to II.

Do you think we are able to say what characteristics a universe created by an omnipotent God, or by very powerful natural intelligences, would have- and how those characteristics would vary from a naturalistic, 'uncreated' universe?

Vorkosigan

Without any starting preconceptions or bias, how might we distinguish between a universe created by an unknown natural phenomena, an omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent being, or merely very powerful/knowledgeable/non-malevolent being(s)? Let's use only this main assumption, since it's equally compatible with all three possibilities:

WinAce,

what you are asking is: how do we know when something is an artifact? Because that is the ID claim: the universe is an artifact designed for us.

The answer is that one only knows when things are artifacts if one has prior experience with artifacts of that nature. Archaeologists face this problem constantly. Controversies are common, especially as the record grows more and more sparse and we go further back in time.

Now, as for the universe, what features of it can we recognize as artifactual? What is our basis for comparison?

Vorkosigan

beausoleil

Many of those 'wrong configuration' things you list are necessary for the production of planets such as ours. For instance, our planet is made from elements that exist because of older stars, giant stars and supernovae. In our system, the existence of one gas giant also looks like a precondition for a stable environment on Earth.

I see no reason to believe our universe was designed - there are other explanations for any propsoed evidence. But I don't find your argument convincing, I'm afraid.

WinAce

Not particularly. I would personally expect a universe created by a God (capital G) to be much more 'reasonable' than ours, but unlike the natural universe, there is nothing you could ever find that would conclusively falsify this model.

However, it seems our universe is exactly what a natural universe would be like--mostly chaotic, devoid of any obvious purpose or direction inherent in the designs we create. Small pockets of order in massive amounts of chaos... exactly what you see in a bathtub. There appears to be nothing whatsoever watching over us, despite what the fundies maintain. In fact, they would realize this if they applied critical thinking--if good things happen, why is it due to God? If bad things happen, why is it NOT due to God? Could it be that they happen randomly, with no discernable purpose whatsoever?

It simply makes more sense that if something actually cared for humanity, it would care for ALL of humanity, not a small subset--highly suspect, often hoaxed, rare 'healings' for backache while ignoring 100 million people dying of malaria?!

I've been a Christian, then a Deist, then an agnostic and finally became an atheist when I realized I was only lying to myself.

I wanted to believe in a kind, benevolent God who would make everything right for everyone in the afterlife, but wanting something doesn't make it true. However, I never wanted to believe in a strange, malicious being who made humans for the sole purpose of sending most of them to eternal torture, even while I was a Xian.

A universe created by natural intelligences (not supernatural gods) would depend on the method they used. The most obvious design choice for something like a universe from our point of view is obviously setting only the basics and letting it turn out itself, not being pedantic and churning out 100 gazillion galaxies and only slightly fewer species of beetle one-by-one.

This universe would, for all effects and purposes, be identical to our own, because it would be created by natural processes the designer exploited. Would the intelligence responsible even be aware of our existence, an insignificant lifeform on one of trillions of planets?

This model therefore has no explanatory power; furthermore, we see nothing particularly 'designed' in the universe. What room is there for ad hoc hypotheses, then? If we should ever find the intelligence responsible, we can know for sure; but our universe is 'undesigned' either way, because it's the result of either nature or the result of design by nature's result

I doubt it would be beyond the capabilities of a super-intelligence to leave behind some unmistakeable traces of design, as opposed to the vague crap the theists always trot out.

However, I don't know what could convince *me* in particular of design; I guess I would have to see the evidence first, then the alternative explanations presented by skeptics, then make an informed decision. It would probably have to be something entirely unambigous--the Bible Code or 'look at the design of the eye' won't cut it.

But this is vitally important to my 'argument' (although I'm not using it to argue; more like 'thinking about it').

Human designs are generally efficient and have a high success rate. For example, you don't see 49 out of 50 TV sets breaking as they're made in the factory. However, if the intent of the 'designer' was to produce life like our own, it appears his 'designs' are just that--crap. One planet among how many that actually supports life, much less intelligent life?

Supernovae, while responsible for the heavier elements in our bodies and solar system, are also (probably) capable of wiping out a civilization if one should be unlucky enough to be in range.

I can only assume this has happened numerous times throughout the universe, just as volcanoes and other phenomena have kicked unsuspecting human butt several times in our history.

Unless the 'designer' didn't anticipate the emergence of intelligent life, it strikes me as completely illogical that it would use such wasteful, destructive processes as supernovae and black holes.

There's quite a great many reasons to assume that anything advanced enough to build a universe would have a highly developed ethical system. If it was a Type IV civilization, they would probably have learned 'humanist' morals long ago or destroyed themselves in the process of developing advanced technology and weapons.

If it was some natural, cosmically emergent intelligence, what would make it sadistic instead of altruistic if both behaviours had equal benefit to itself?

So, the idea of God designing the universe is utterly ridiculous... which leaves natural phenomena and limited, albeit highly advanced, intelligent agents using nothing but natural forces to achieve whatever their 'goals' were...