Refractor

My argument made no such claim or implication. The Sears Tower in Chicago is also just a "complex arrangement of matter", but that doesn't mean it didn't require intelligent builders to "arrange" the matter.

There is nothing silly about it. In fact, when you get down to the biochemical systems of living organisms, it can be argued that even the simplest cells are more complex than the Sears Tower. You say such levels of complexity and corroborated order can be caused by mindless natural forces, but you have absolutely no proof for that assertion. It is merely your own naturalistic wishful-thinking.


We have no proof of ultra-complex entities coming into existence *without* designers. Thus, my analogy succeeds.


Refractor

Refractor

That's PRO-creation my friend. We are not talking about procreation, but primary creation.

Refractor

For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. We live in a macroscopic universe, so there is nothing incorrect about step one. You have no proof that the origin of the universe was microscopic, or quantum. You merely speculate that it was, but guess what? Your unprovable speculations do not undercut my argument. In fact, unprovable speculations have no power to undercut anything. It simply represents your "opinion".


There is ZERO evidence regarding the actual state of the universe at it's origin. The only thing the "incredible compelling evidence" (which is macroscopic by the way) proves is that the universe is currently in a state of expansion. That's it. What it expanded from, how long it has been expanding, the physics prior to the beginning of it's expansion, ect, are questions that fall into the realm of fairytale and imagination because there are simply no scientific facts that conclusively verify any theory.


Not true at all. The claims upon which your rebuttals have been based are faulty, therefore, my argument is unscathed.


Oh, and believing that massively complex and ordered universes popped into existence uncaused out of some unknown, unobserved, and unprovable quantum phenomenon *IS* "evidence", and "compelling logic"???

It may have formed that way, but there is no physical proof to support that notion. Additionally, in terms of our experience, all observed primary causes for complex/ordered systems are intelligent designers. So for any unknown primary cause of a complex/ordered system, we have good reason to posit an intelligent designer.

No, it is not equally as likely because we have never observed mindless natural processes as the PRIMARY cause for any complex/ordered systems.

I have coherently explained this......you have simply chosen to ignore/reject that explanation because you are philosophically prejudice against supernatural possibilities. We have no evidence that complex/ordered systems (like the universe) self-create or self-cause. However, we do have loads of evidence that complex/ordered systems are created by intelligent designers. Therefore, since the universe is a complex/ordered system, the terms of our experience support the notion that it was created by an intelligent designer, and do not support the notion that it was self-caused, uncaused, or self-created.


To assume there even was a "process" at the origin of the universe is problematic. What kind of process? What was this process made up of? If it was a process made up of physical properties, then it itself would be PART of the universe because the "universe" is defined as *ALL* things physical. So when you say a natural process created the universe, it begs the question of what kind of process this was, and it inevitably leads to the logical paradox of a universe that was both it's own CAUSE and EFFECT. (Which is a notion that goes against all logic, knowledge, and probability)


As I explained earlier in this post, an intelligent designer notion is more logical because it is supported by the terms of our experience. The terms of our experience do not support complex/ordered systems popping into existence self-caused, from nothing.

Every single piece of data derived from observation that makes up all "human knowledge" - is based on human experiences. Any claims made by any human are claims made based on human experience, so I do not see how your argument here has any pragmatic value to support your assertions, or undercut mine.


Refractor

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Refractor :

What is a primary cause? We've certainly observed mindless natural processes producing complex and ordered systems, whatever those are. Snowflakes are a good example.

Just so you know, the classic teleological argument is almost completely dead in contemporary philosophy of religion. If you choose to try to resurrect it, do so at your own risk.

The major problem, I think, is that we just don't have reason to think mindless natural processes can't produce complex and ordered systems. We don't have reason to be surprised that the universe turned out the way it did. Other possible universes seem to be just as complex and ordered.

What's so ordered about the universe?

Fiach

The motivation for "intelligent design" is deceptive. It is not intellectual curiosity over nature. It is a desire to find an excuse to think that God is real. Why do you need God? You need God to reinforce your most precious superstition, that delusion of immortality. That is your real motive.

Fiach

Philosoft

This is what you said:This implies an unresolvable dichotomy between life and non-life. We have lots of examples of matter self-organizing into more complex forms, so, while we lack direct evidence, we don't have any reason to think that life is not simply some higher level of self-organization. Why, then, do you assert there is some "gap" that is manifestly uncrossable?

This sounds very Dembski-esque. Do you have any ideas how we might measure levels of complexity?

I don't recall making any assertion about the capabilities of "mindless natural forces." If you'll recall, you're the one whose argument amounts to 'mindless natural forces cannot create life from non-life.' Thus, the burden is yours. I'm under no burden of disproof until such time as you can give me an example of a 'mindful supernatural force' that I can observe to see what it's capable of.

Heh. Considering I can think of about seventeen trillion ways to engage in 'supernaturalistic' wishful thinking, and zero ways to tell which one is correct, I'll take that as a complement.

Well, we have proof of some complex entities coming into existence without designers. As soon as you tell me what is an "ultra-complex entity," how to recognize "ultra-complexity," and what level of complexity requires a designer, I'll reconsider your analogy.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

And, even when there is a designer, why does the designer have to be conscious?

(Let alone 'God', your particular God?)

Keith.

HRG

We have never observed ultra-complex entities coming into existence because of the action of an intelligent designer.

Inductive conclusion: they are too complex to be the result of intelligent design. Intelligently designed things do not rise above a certain level of complexity.

Remember the monolith in Clarke's 2001 ? It was immediately recognized as an artifact because its shape was so simple.

Regards,
HRG.

HRG

True. Irrelevant, too.
No, we don't. We live in a quantum universe, which in the limited domain we can observe with our naked senses behaves approximately like a macroscopic (=classical) universe.
You have no proof that it wasn't.
[quote]

You merely speculate that it was, but guess what? Your unprovable speculations do not undercut my argument. In fact, unprovable speculations have no power to undercut anything. It simply represents your "opinion".
[quote]
This is quite ridiculous, especially from someone who claims - without argument - that we live in a macroscopic universe.

What you call "unprovable speculation" is simply the point that you have failed to demonstrate the validity of your premises. Thus they - and their conclusion with them - simply represent your "opinion".

Pot - kettle - black.

Why do you claim that the universe is ordered - and what would a "chaotic" universe look like ? Some phenomena within the universe are quite chaotic, if you analyse them closely.

What we call "order" is simply that what the universe happens to be.
Only for complex systems below a certain maximal complexity level and size. Thus we should conclude that life is too complex and that the universe is too big to be the result of intelligent design.

If you have independent evidence for the existence of sufficiently (= unboundedly) powerful and suitably motivated designers, you should present them. Otherwise, your are arguing like that the absence of telephone wires in Egyptian pyramids by itself is an indication that they already had cordless phones - not that they had no telephones at all

We also have no evidence that intelligent designers self-create or self-cause. Thus who designed and created your putative designer ?

IOW, you try to solve a problem (the existence of an allegedly ordered universe) by switching to a bigger and equally unsolved problem: the existence of an even more complex/ordered designer.

All we have evidence of is that some complex and ordered systems are created by humans (the only intelligent designers we know).

However, these examples of complex/ordered systems are utterly unlike the universe or life-forms - and I don't think that you want to argue that the universe was made by humans.

Regards,
HRG.

rainbow walking

Fascinating...


1) Virtually all observed physical events have a cause.

O'kay, let's asume this is true. Let's take an easy example and see if we can pinpoint an observable, actual cause. Let's say the appearance of a sunrise on any particular morning is the "effect" from which we are bent on determining the "cause". Is this sunrise caused by the earth's rotation on its axis, gravitational effects of the moon, Jupiter and Mars, the formulation of this solar system, or some preceding event that led to what we catagorically label as "this universe"? What is the TRUE "cause" of this particular sunrise? We are interested in truth here when discussing things like the existence of a god and not just epistemologically frozen moments in an ongoing saga, right?




2) Virtually all observed physical events have a cause that is separate and distinct from the event.


And how do we separate and distingiush cause from effect? Is it not an artificial distinction made so by our meager attempts to manipulate our survival? If we cannot truthfully establish the genuine "cause" of any given effect how do you propose to establish the existence of super nature wherein such a "being" resides and manipulates both causes and effects to his discretion? Such an argument, based on the extrapolation of facts from a naturalistic epistemology to support a contention for the existence of a supernaturalistic epistemology is doomed from the outset. You may as well be saying that all natural effects have an ultimate supernatrural cause, which doesn't bode well for either your claim of such a being having attributes of either intelligence or goodwill towards man. (Recognizing that you haven't made this latter claim of goodwill...yet).


3) Therefore, for any given physical event, it most likely had a cause that was separate and distinct from the event.


And just how separate and distinct is the sunrise from gravity, lightwaves and particles, strong and weak nuclear forces and the dust clouds of Andromeda? All are natural phenomena that coexist and are required for any single or conglomerate effect you or I will ever observe...yet not one observation of the supernatural has ever been verified, much less, substantiated as the cause or effect of any of these other observable events.

4) The origin of the universe is a physical event.



And just what do you mean by "origin"? Is not "origin" just another human derivative encapsulated in our limited existence thus dictating we artificially separate and distinguish all events as being originated or terminated when, in fact, they are nothing more than timeless, seamless changes that flow from an indistinguishable past into an indeterminate future? There is no evidence that anything we hold as "this universe" ever had an original cause...only that it changes, sometimes gradually over long periods of time and sometimes drastically and immediate with powerful consequences...but an original cause...you have failed to provide any convincing argument that such a concept is even viable macrologically.


5) Therefore, the origin of the universe most likely had a cause that was separate and distinct from the universe.

And thus your argument for the existence of a supernatural being comes crashing down upon the rocks of presuppositions based on epistemological observances garnered by centuries of scrupulous investigations of a puzzle yet to be completed. Some of these observations have tentively concluded that some 13 billion years ago existence went through a series of drastic changes that have evolved into that sunrise I offerred as an earlier example of an effect. Nothing in those observations suggest that it was an "origination" of natural existence. This is an interpretation that has fallen under the influence of theological imperatives designed to rescusitate and rescue religious dogmas from the self inflicted tombs of faith and miracles and to reinvigorate it with a mantle of respectability at the expense of science.

Your arguments incurr a double indemnity on your part as they necessitate you support not only your claim for the existence of such a being as this god, but for the existence of such a dwelling place as this supernatural enclave from which you allege he resides and has his "being". Since, according to you, his "being" is non-physical, you have multiplied your own obstacles at the outset. I, as do others here, anxiously await your anticipated intellectual extrication from these difficulties.