luvluv

I've heard this argument put forth here several times in regards to the Telelogical Argument. I've never quite understood it. A few questions:

Why would an omnipotent being not need to contrive means to an end?

What would a universe created by omnipotence look like? Would it have no design? Would things work against natural laws? If so, how would we know? Would there even be natural laws.

Wouldn't a world lacking in intricate design be, conversely, a sign of a lack of knowledge, prompting the atheologians in such a world to posit that the lack of ingenuity behind the brute necessity of life shows that the creator cannot be intelligent. Isn't a catch-22? If God uses intricate design in creation, he's not powerful. If he uses simply brute power to make a seemingly undesigned universe "work" automatically and nonsensically, then he's not intelligent.

So, basically, what I'm asking is if a universe which is permeated with what appears to be design is not evidence of God, what would a universe which was designed by God look like?

NothingButSky

Interesting questions.

An omnipotent creator could create any type of universe, which means that you cannot really use the design of the universe as a proof or disproof of God (i.e., if any number of causes could get you to the universe that we see today, how can you narrow down the causes simply based on the result?)

In other words, our perception of order should not be confused with the idea that said order was designed by an omnipotent being. Intelligent design is a logical but not the only logical explanation.

Of course, God could have set up an infinite number of parallel universes, so that you have the range of the simple to the complex. We can imagine parallel universes; if we could also perceive one, then that might marginally strengthen the idea of an omnipotent God (an omnipotent God who could do everything probably did, and would not limit Itself to a single universe; though again, there is the danger of confusing the perception of order or multiplicity with the idea that Something designed it).

Jobar

I've heard this before. If God is truly omnipotent, and chooses to make a universe in which he is hidden, then he will be perfectly hidden, and the universe will appear completely natural and self-generated.

The trouble with this sort of deistic universe is that it gives no possible handle on God- we cannot say anything about him. If God wants to hide, we can't find him, and all our seeking is fruitless and time-wasting.

Wyrdsmyth

Regarding your OP, luvluv...

I think you've struck a key note. A universe that shows what we would define as intricacy, complexity and uniformity cannot -- merely on that basis -- be used to either prove or falsify any given god-concept. Because, like you say, if we posit an omnipotent god, then we could just as easily argue from that that we shouldn't see much in the way of subtlety, since it is unnecessary and superfluous. One can argue from a variety of angles, with a little imagination.

This leads to different thoughts as well:

We can't conclude the universe is designed, since we don't have any real way of saying what an 'undesigned' universe would be like. But by the same token, we can't conclude the universe is undesigned, for the reciprocal reason.

Also, there's no clear way to define the criteria for intelligent design. Complex, uniform objects appear in nature, like the polygonal basalt "giant steps" in Ireland -- and yet a stone wedge carved by primitive man is designed, although it can easily be mistaken for just a naturally shaped stone. It was shaped by intelligence, with a design in mind, and yet it is not complex or uniform.

Third -- and I think perhaps the most important -- is the often unaddressed but implicit endorsement of the intuitions that complexity cannot arise from simplicity, that order cannot arise out of chaos, that intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence, and life cannot come from non-life. These may be counter-intuitive proposals, but so is the idea that the earth is a ball that revolves around the sun. They can't be ruled out, axiomatically.

Wyz_sub10

I think this is really the key in such discussions (as well as in ID discussions).

There is a tendancy from humans to "see" design whether or not it exists. Pareidolia is an example of this tendency.

Unless there is a signature in the bottom right corner of the universe (perhaps hidden beneath the frame) I don't think we can apply the concept of "design" to anything cosmic.

sandlewood

I’ve heard a similar argument that makes more sense to me. It is that God doesn’t need to make a plan if he is omnipotent. A plan is a means to an end. An omnipotent being shouldn’t need a means to an end; he should be able to go directly to the end.

But I wouldn’t feel as confident defending the argument that evidence of design is evidence of a lack of power. A design is a means to an end for a human. However, I’d think an omnipotent being could make a universe look as though it were designed without going through the design step per se. So the word “design” would mean only that things were constructed to serve a particular function, not that there was a design for the universe before it actually existed.

I think that saying the universe is designed begs the question, though. To say that something is designed already means that some conscious entity had a purpose for something. We can more easily claim that human-designed things are designed because we know a lot more about humans and what purposes they have.

Conchobar

If some entity creates something, that something has structure, physical properties, size, time constraints, and location.

If God is omnipotent and he creates the universe, the universe is a definable something. That means it has structure, properties, size, time periods, and location. That would be a type of design. By design it does not imply that it be perfect. It does not require that it be entirely orderly.

The Universe is not orderly. That is an illusion. After the hypothetical big bang, energy became particles, and particles became atoms. They were not orderly dispersed and homogeneous throughout the universe.. Otherwise we would not be discussing it. But it wasn't orderly. Atoms were attracted and clumped forming nebulae that contracted by gravity into stars. Gravity held the clumps together and repulsive forces caused the clumps to move away from each other. There is dark matter, a mix of repulsive and gravitational forces pushing and pulling at clumps (stars and galaxies). It is not orderly. It does not provide good evidence for design. Much of it looks too chaotic and random.

I would think that an omnipotent god could have made an orderly symmetrical universe. But does a perfect creator have to make perfect things. No, but why deliberately make it imperfect and full of flaws. Why make a world like Earth with major defects, moving tectonic plates and earthquakes, volcanoes, killer hurricanes and tornados? Why make life forms that evolved by millions or billions of mutations, most of which fail to get one successful adaptation? Why design a world in which predators with fang and claw rip apart relatively defenceless herbivores, in bloody and painful agonies. Why would the designer design viruses that mutate to create thousands of diseases? Why design the DNA to not only mutate for evolution but mutate to grow cancers causing slow painful death? It is disorderly. It could be designed but it is sloppy design that does not glorify the designer. Randomness and quantum factors seem more plausible.

We can't test it, there is not hard evidence. But in my humble opinion a designer should have done a better job. However, if he intended to hide, then his universe was the ideal one. It makes it look like there is no intelligent creator thereby hiding the creater behind the Curtain. That means he desired for us not to find him, and indeed we haven't and likely never will.

Conchobar

Koyaanisqatsi

The trouble I always find with this type of speculation lies more in misconstruing the terms than with a legitimate postulation of an "intelligent designer."

"Intelligent designer" all too easily gets conflated with the word "God;" itself a word that has literally limitless definitions (including my favorite, "undefinable").

So before any serious discussion can ensue, it should be agreed upon that this in no way links to a god of cult mythology, other than as a possibly intuited notion blown wildly out of proportion.

We are, after all, "intelligent designers," so it cannot be misconstrued to be any form of proof about the existence of mythological creatures.

With that caveat out of the way, the notion of a Universal Intelligent Designer (let's call it the UID for short), actually becomes a rather mundane concept, more along the lines of a computer programmer or biochemist. See, the problem, IMO, comes in when one begins the infinite regress; the who designed the designer of the designer paradox, which is why Aquinas and just about every theist who posts here always merely asserts a "first designer" as a necessary being.

But, one can't do that. Period. One cannot postulate a designer without the inherent notion of a designer of the designer, as you are simply arguing at cross-purposes to the initial structure of your argument.

The initial structure of the argument is that the universe is not "all that is;" that there can exist something in a meta-universe or "realm" of some kind (the UID), who created the parameters and had the tremendous power to then instigate them into this universe.

So, fine, you've successfully postulated that our universe is analogous to a computer and the UID to a computer programmer. Great. Who then designed the UID and the concept of the computer? You can't just say they happened simultaneously without begging your own question, since, if the IUD was created at the same time it created the universe, you've got an impossible logical paradox that cannot be resolved.

Let me repeat that. Cannot be resolved.

The only thing that can happen in that scenario is what does happen, of course, which is the cognitive dissonance of the theist; thus it isn't resolved through faith, as I've heard fallaciously argued ad nauseam throughout my life, since faith is not a tool of resolution.

The meaning of that word and its proper context, however, gets constantly misconstrued and therein, again, lies the problem.

So, while there could be an UID, there doesn't need to be one, so arguing what could be, while entertaining, does not lead one to what is.

What is, is the universe and how it operates. Making patterns out of it is fun, indeed, but those patterns are precisely that; patterns of the individual mind's imposition of order.

So, postulate a UID all you like, but understand that it can't ever lead to anything more than an infiinite regress that one cannot simply resolve with an assertion of a "necessary first cause," because the second you go outside the universe for an explanation of that universe, is the second you instigate the infinite regress that necessarily follows such a structure.

The only question a proponent of the UID needs to address, IMO, is the need for a UID. Why must the universe be the result of an intelligent designer? As others have amply pointed out, any one of us could design a "better" universe had we omnipotence, number one of which for me would be to design humans with the ability to auto-regenerate limbs.

There's a perfectly benign design flaw that wouldn't adversely effect the "balance" I so often hear theists ultimately argue when they attempt this sophistry as a backdoor into a proof of their god's existence.

And this is, of course, where the ultimate fallacy of the whole ruse lies; in the inevitable deification of humanity over other animals or plants or matter, for that matter . The UID comes from our own projections of grandeur, to coin a phrase, and nothing more. We simply want to take credit for it all, so we've concocted images of "perfect" selves that have done just that.

Why? Human arrogance is why as well as human fear, of course. For, if there isn't a "perfect" version of us out there that created all of this pain and suffering, then it's shear madness all the way around. Or so the indoctrinated mind is instructed to think.

But the simple fact is that is indeed "madness" all the way around if that's how you are trained to look at it. And why would you be trained to look at it that way? Because of human arrogance, once again. Look, native American Indians largely saw everything around them as parts of them just as they were parts of everything around them; in other words "harmony with nature," to use a cliche that nonetheless aptly describes what was once arguably one of the greatest spiritual communities to have ever lived and the reason it was "true," was because they lived it. It's that simple. They lived and died in nature and in a natural state.

As a result, they were of course destroyed largely as a direct result of a false religious doctrine; through the hubris installed by the anthropormorphic projection of our own grandeur.

So, where does that leave us, then? As Terrance McKenna put it, "Our legacy is the legacy of the children of the stoned monkeys."

You do the math.

GrandDesigner

I have read somewhere the thought, and rightfully so, that just because a God can make a universe which adheres to certain properties, for as long as He allows, it doesn't mean He cant make one that is not governed in any way distinguishable. Well, except by Him.

If God is truly omnipotent, and chooses to make a universe in which he is hidden, then he will be perfectly hidden, and the universe will appear completely natural and self-generated.

Or He could be sitting right in front of You or on the other side of a monitor and when you were asked about it, You've been conditioned enough, in His system, that You dont believe it. So, yes, perfectly hidden to infinitum.

"Intelligent designer"

Now that has a ring to it, doesn't it?

As others have amply pointed out, any one of us could design a "better" universe had we omnipotence

Ok...and then....

Look, native American Indians largely saw everything around them as parts of them just as they were parts of everything around them; in other words "harmony with nature,"

Ok, good. I dont know about any of you, but I tend to enjoy putting things together. Lets take the idea that we're all part of nature, which I really agree with, and hopefully I read you right on that. It only makes sense that we're all together in this thing. Whatever you want to call it. Life..existence...the Universe. But now hang on though. Going by that notion means we are the UID. But then that roadblock comes up of "well, if we could have designed this Universe, then we WOULD have done a far better job."

But there's a possibility we all did have part in designing this thing. But what do you know of, say...trade embargos? Do you think we could really all agree on what would be considered "the be- all of great Universes" ?

It's possible, I'll grant that. But only as easily as possible as everyone agreeing on whether there is a God or not.

Grand Ol Designer

Koyaanisqatsi

I won't respond to the first part, because I'm not sure if it was directed at me or not (and, it was incoherent).

...and then I gave an example of one of the things I would have designed into the human animal....? Remember? The auto-regeneration of limbs?

You know? The "and then" part of your "and then" part?

Yeah, you could say we do to .

You do, indeed.

Ok....

In only poetic terms and in no way pragmatic terms (the only ones that matter), anymore than a band made up of five indivuals is considered a "whole" eventhough, they obviously are not one being.

Do you understand the difference between an "audience" and "an audience is actually comprised of many individuals?" The abstraction derived ("audience") is a misnomer.

That means it is to be discarded as false, however analogous it may appear.

Hmmm. Ironically, this is all helping me with another thread, but I digress.

No, that "roadblock" is erroneously postulated by you according to your fallacious first premise. The fact is, I can do a "far better job," by simply augmenting human exoskeletal design to be regenerative in the same manner as countless other species on the planet.

And please, let me pre-emptively remind you yet again as I did in my last post, that the ability to auto-regenerate severed limbs would in no way impact upon the universe; the key to all of this that theists so consistently try to sidestep.

If I am omnipotent, then I can design humans to breathe water and live in outer space and eat "dark matter" and have absolutely no ill side effects to nature at all.

The only possible side effects are to a different topic entirely from this one that theists erroneously attempt to conflate with alarming frequency of late; i.e., human morality and the consequences of our "sin".

All of the trillions of creatures on this planet know nothing of "sin," yet their actions are appalling! There are wives who kill and consume their mates and males who destroy a husband's seed in favor of forcibly implanting their own in its place, in nature; there are canibals of all horrific natures, in nature; there are thieves and coveters and mass murderers, in nature; there are even beings--the majority of creatures on this earth, no less--who will beat you into submission in any way imaginable and then keep you alive until your entire internal structure liquifies, so that they can literally drink you while you're still alive!

Then there are the "lesser" beings, who will simply smash your skull against a rock until you stop moving and then tear your body apart raw for sustanence.

There are still others--billions of them on and in you right now--who will live off of you; eating what they want when they want and leaving behind their defecant in your eyelid (that's what "sleep" is in your eyes, btw; the dried defecation of millions of parasitic, microscopic mites that live in and around just about every human hair on your body).

They are homosexual and have pre-marital sex with multiple partners in many instances (indeed, they don't ever "marry," though some do mate for life) and they even worship false gods in the same way we do, one might say, if one were a dog owner and knows the iconic, devotional reverence and power of the throwing stick or tennis ball.

Is all of this factored into the homocentrism, by any chance?

Why would we need to "agree" if we're all omniscient?

Well, good thing that we're all not omniscient, then, eh? Since we don't agree.

Funny how the irony of that stands out as "proof," don't you think?