Intelligent Design/Fine Tuning Question

[aiki]

Why can't a circle have right angles, or a fish have feathers? By definition, a circle has no right angles and fish have no feathers. Likewise, by definition God has no designer. If He did have a designer, then His designer would necessarily be superior to Him and thus His God. All you do by positing a designer of God is set the First Cause back a step. In any case, the concept of God, at least in the Christian worldview, necessarily entails that God is causeless. God cannot be God if He is not causeless just like a circle cannot be a circle if it has a right angle.
"All you do by positing a designer of God is set the First Cause back a step."

That is exactly what you are doing! Why is it that our universe is not the First Cause? If something complex (God) can be causeless, why not just save yourself a step and use Occam's Razor to slice down God and say physical laws are causeless?

For one, because I don't have a vested philosphical interest in doing so like an atheist does. Also, I don't agree that God is complex - certainly not in the way the physical universe is. If one pares down the concept of God (at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition) to its bare essentials, one finds oneself dealing with a Mind - a transcendent, all-knowing, omnipresent, incredibly powerful, bodiless Mind. There are none of the complexities of cells, or atoms, or material structures to fuss with. In fact, God turns out to be remarkably simple. He is certainly a much simpler explanation for the existence of the universe than the vastly complex universe itself!

And how could the universe be self-existent? How could it have caused itself? It would have to have been in existence to have cause its own existence! This makes no sense at all! If it already existed, it would not have to cause its own existence. And where would the universe exist prior to the beginning of space-time? There would have been no place prior to the Big Bang in which to exist! Anyway...

Our universe could not have caused itself. We know with significant certainty that it began to exist at a finite point in the past. The Big Bang Theory clearly posits this. Initially most secular scientists were inclined to reject this theory since it seemed to lend credence to the Christian assertion that the universe was created. The evidence for this theory was too strong (redshift in the light from distant galaxies, the existence of various light elements in the universe, cosmic background microwave radiation), however, and despite the reluctance of most secular scientists, it was generally adopted. Relatively recently, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem proves that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. Andre Vilenkin is straightforward about the implications of the theorem:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof (of the theorem) now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

Because God is a Cause, the First Cause, in fact, while the universe is the effect of a cause. Mainstream secular science has established by way of the Big Bang Theory that the universe began to exist a finite time ago, which points very clearly to the universe being an effect, not a cause. "Ex nihilo, nihilo fit."
Mainstream secular science cannot explain the Big Bang without using an infinitely (impossibly) small point. We know nothing of the root 'cause' of our universe, if any.

As you can see, this is not really the case. Simple, straightforward logic enables us to reasonably posit a number of things about the Cause of the universe.

1.) In order to create time, space, matter and energy, the Cause of the universe has to be transcendent to all of these things.
2.) In order to create the universe the Cause must incredibly powerful.
3.) In order to create the universe the Cause must be personal.
4.) The nature of the universe suggests its Cause is also changeless.

And so on.

Also, there are serious logical problems with holding that the universe is infinite. For example, it is impossible for the universe to have arrived at the present moment because, if the universe has an infinite existence, there is an infinite span of time existing before this moment which is, because it is infinite, impossible to cross.
Infinite, much like the point of the Big Bang .

The "point" of the Big Bang is not infinite.

In fact, there are many things about it that we do know. And some of those things indicate that the universe is finite and caused.
Well first, I see nothing to indicate that the universe was caused. I'd be happy to look at any evidence for that.

See above. See also the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Liebniz's Argument from Contingency.

Second, there are things that indicate the universe is infinite and not finite. To judge that, we should look at the possible beginning and end of the universe. In the beginning we have the Big Bang exploding out of an infinitesimally small point...seems like a good case for an infinite beginning.

Not really...

In the end our best guesses have the universe expanding pretty much forever, until everything is so spaced out the universe is black from every point. Here it would rest for infinity.

Heat death is likely if the universe continues on long enough. But this doesn't establish its infiniteness so far as I can see...

The universe never began (although it did become active), and it will never end (only lose activity).

I'm afraid it is well established that it did in fact have a beginning. That it may never have an end doesn't make it infinite, only eternal.

Selah.

 

[Question.Everything]

Something has to be eternal and causeless, otherwise you end up with an infinite regress, which is a severe logical problem. It seems you yourself recognize this. So, either God (an eternal causeless mind) or the universe (an intricate and complex array of matter and energy) is eternal. We can go to science to see which is more likely.

Minds are arrays of complex matter and energy (neurons). If you've got any evidence to suggest that a matterless mind can exist, your argument would hold a little more weight.

Because the universe (matter, energy, space, and time) had an absolute beginning about 13.7 billion years ago in the big bang. This is the overwhelming consensus of modern cosmology. Given that science is the epistemological foundation of naturalism, to reject this consensus is a violation of your own epistemology. So, the universe is not eternal.

Science is not certain what happened at the beginning of our universe. You're giving it more credit than it deserves.

On top of all this, the universe is intricately finely tuned to allow the evolution of intelligent life. If any of the fundamental physical constants of the cosmos were off by even a tiny fraction of a percentile, life and even stars could not exist. These physical constants are not physically necessary as a result of physical laws, they just happen to be programmed into the universe at the moment of the big bang. This is indicative of purposeful design.

God is the supreme and complex intelligence that created our universe, which holds intelligence. Is God not finely tuned to exist?

The question then becomes this; which is more likely to be the causeless cause responsible for this finely tuned universe, an eternal mind (God) or an infinite set of unfathomably complex universes with random designs somehow interacting with each other and existing for no apparent reason, by chance producing a universe like ours in an infinite cosmic dice game? (multiverse hypothesis)

What is implausible about multiverse theory?

Following Okhams Razor, God is the simplest explanation to explain the observable fact that we inhabit a finite and finely tuned universe

God has the supreme intelligence to create our incredibly complex universe...and God is supposed to be more simple than our universe? This doesn't make any sense.

Further, where does our sense of natural beauty come from? Why is nature beautiful, in a naturalistic frame work? I can see no evolutionary benefit to perception of beauty in nature.

Our sense of beauty comes from our mind, which can interpret images that we then think about. Not everything in nature happens to perfectly evolve itself.

 

[Question.Everything]

Where do you think space originate?

Where do you think time originate?

Where do you think matter originate?

Where do you think energy originate?

I don't know.

What is 'material'? What is it made of? Is it matter, energy or something else?

Yes, matter and energy.

 

[Question.Everything]

There is the appearance of intelligent design everywhere we look, so how would random unintelligent energy and matter produce the appearance of intelligence and actual intelligence (as found in humans for instance)?

Evolution.

Since something has to exist forever,

Something HAS to exist forever? Why?

which takes more “faith” to believe in: an eternal intelligent powerful creator of the universe or random energy/matter producing a very complex universe?

The hardest pill to swallow is always humility, and accepting that we have absolutely no idea what went into the founding of our universe. No faith is necessary.

 

[Question.Everything]

And are these universal laws? Do they apply everywhere or just where you are. Are they true for everyone or just for you?

Yes they are universal.

 

[Question.Everything]

It began to exist.

It began to exist from the Big Bang. We have no idea where the energy/matter from the BB came. It is eternal for all we know.

 

[Question.Everything]

But this all is outside the purpose of the thesis. The question is: where does logic originate? I maintain, it originates with God.

Logic is self-evident. You're right in saying that logic isn't a living being, but that's not what you first contended by saying that it's consistent and immaterial. But no, it's not alive, it is just a way to distinguish and compartmentalize reality. Logic only exists because we're intelligent enough to give it a name.

Furthermore, what do you quantify as 'living'? How is something 'alive'?

If you are to argue that logic originates with God, you should be able to provide proof that God is there to create logic in the first place.

 

[Nails74]

And are these universal laws? Do they apply everywhere or just where you are. Are they true for everyone or just for you?

Yes they are universal.

And are they changing or unchanging? Have they always existed and will they continue to exist?

 

[Hestha]

And are they changing or unchanging? Have they always existed and will they continue to exist?

The laws of logic do not change and can be applied everywhere. As they always say, mathematics is an universal language!

Even if God once confused the people and divided them up to different parts of the world and speaking in different languages, incomprehensible to each other, it appears that the language of mathematics persists and connects us together! Yea!

 

[Question.Everything]

For one, because I don't have a vested philosphical interest in doing so like an atheist does. Also, I don't agree that God is complex - certainly not in the way the physical universe is. If one pares down the concept of God (at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition) to its bare essentials, one finds oneself dealing with a Mind - a transcendent, all-knowing, omnipresent, incredibly powerful, bodiless Mind. There are none of the complexities of cells, or atoms, or material structures to fuss with. In fact, God turns out to be remarkably simple. He is certainly a much simpler explanation for the existence of the universe than the vastly complex universe itself!

The complexity of cells is what makes a mind. Do you think God is completely invisible?

And how could the universe be self-existent? How could it have caused itself? It would have to have been in existence to have cause its own existence! This makes no sense at all! If it already existed, it would not have to cause its own existence. And where would the universe exist prior to the beginning of space-time? There would have been no place prior to the Big Bang in which to exist! Anyway...

Our universe could not have caused itself. We know with significant certainty that it began to exist at a finite point in the past. The Big Bang Theory clearly posits this. Initially most secular scientists were inclined to reject this theory since it seemed to lend credence to the Christian assertion that the universe was created. The evidence for this theory was too strong (redshift in the light from distant galaxies, the existence of various light elements in the universe, cosmic background microwave radiation), however, and despite the reluctance of most secular scientists, it was generally adopted. Relatively recently, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem proves that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. Andre Vilenkin is straightforward about the implications of the theorem:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof (of the theorem) now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

Is it possible that scientists are wrong about the Big Bang? Or is it possible that perhaps they don't fully understand it?

What we know is that the universe has been expanding, strongly suggesting that it all expanded from [something]. That [something] is an infinitesimally small point of matter/energy. We don't know how long it was there before it expanded, and we don't know if anything was before it.

1.) In order to create time, space, matter and energy, the Cause of the universe has to be transcendent to all of these things.

Why? When a single cell splits in two, greater complexity comes from the single cell; nothing transcendent about it. Perhaps our space/matter/energy/time comes from another space/matter/energy/time.

2.) In order to create the universe the Cause must incredibly powerful.

I can agree with this.

3.) In order to create the universe the Cause must be personal.

This I really don't understand.

4.) The nature of the universe suggests its Cause is also changeless.

I'm afraid it is well established that it did in fact have a beginning. That it may never have an end doesn't make it infinite, only eternal.

The point of the big bang is still unknown, I'm including that in my definition of the universe. An expansion of the big bang into our current state of the universe did occur and would be considered the birth of all of the matter we see now. But that's just the beginning of the expansion of the universe. Scientists do not know what was going on in space/time at the exact point the big bang happened.

 

[Question.Everything]

And are they changing or unchanging? Have they always existed and will they continue to exist?

They are unchanging and will continue to exist.

 

[Question.Everything]

The laws of logic do not change and can be applied everywhere. As they always say, mathematics is an universal language!

Even if God once confused the people and divided them up to different parts of the world and speaking in different languages, incomprehensible to each other, it appears that the language of mathematics persists and connects us together! Yea!

I'm capable of answering the questions people ask me, thanks .

 

[Nails74]

And are they changing or unchanging? Have they always existed and will they continue to exist?

They are unchanging and will continue to exist.

So then, how do unchanging, immaterial, universal laws of logic exist in a random universe? How do you account for logic within your worldview?

 

[Question.Everything]

So then, how do unchanging, immaterial, universal laws of logic exist in a random universe? How do you account for logic within your worldview?

First, a natural universe does not imply that it's "random".

Second, the laws of logic 'exist' because intelligent beings are here to give them a name. Logic is not a being, it's just a word used to describe how things operate.

 

[golgotha61]

Logic is self-evident. You're right in saying that logic isn't a living being, but that's not what you first contended by saying that it's consistent and immaterial.

The argument is not whether logic is self-evident or needs proof of its existence. We all know it exists. The question is where does it originate? Also, I don't see any inconsistency in my statement that logic is consistent and non-material as well as not a living being.

But no, it's not alive, it is just a way to distinguish and compartmentalize reality. Logic only exists because we're intelligent enough to give it a name.

If you are to argue that logic originates with God, you should be able to provide proof that God is there to create logic in the first place.

I will remind you that I also contend that logic is an entity and as such it is not just a way of distinguishing reality. Logic does not exist because it has a name, this in itself is illogical.



Logic is an entity that is comprised of laws, one of which is the law of non-contradiciton. If the laws of logic are not laws governing correct reasoning but just descriptions of the way the brain works, then no one could be found guilty being irrational or breaking the laws of logic.

Also, if laws of logic merely existed materially in the brain, then logic would not be universally true since our individual brains operate differently and logic would change with each person's brain functions.

The identification of the origin of logic is one of the tools that helps in determining the existence of God. Like I said, I maintain logic originates from God and I gave the reasons why I believe this is true. If you think logic originates elsewhere, where does it originate?

 

[bling]

Evolution.

Evolution is an explanation for positive changes in living substances going through generations.

We are talking about matter and energy, what mechanism is there for matter/energy to make positive changes other than just random chance?

Something HAS to exist forever? Why?

The problem is the notion of: “something coming from nothing” seem inconceivable?

The hardest pill to swallow is always humility, and accepting that we have absolutely no idea what went into the founding of our universe. No faith is necessary.

I agree that: “the hardest pill is always humility”, but what pride can man take in trusting in a benevolent creator in order to accept charity? (Is that not something the lowliest person of earth can do?)

Does trusting in the existence of a benevolent Creator elevate man more than the idea; man is the unbelievable lucky creature that was somehow randomly everything came together to make humans in this universe?

Are you making any assumptions?

 

[aiki]

The complexity of cells is what makes a mind. Do you think God is completely invisible?

By definition, God is transcendent to time, space and matter. If God is a tangible, physical entity like you or I, He would be bound by the very things He is supposed to have created. Obviously, this doesn't make sense. In order to have created time, space and matter, God would have to exist in a form that is transcendent to these things. Thus, God must exist in an incorporeal state. Numbers have the same sort of existence. It makes no sense to ask, "Where does the number 2 live?" or "How much does the number 5 weigh?" Numbers have no physical existence, yet they are nonetheless real, distinct entities. One could say the same about various properties as well. Redness, or goodness, or a particular thing's worth or value cannot be reduced to a physical substance. A cattle rancher may say that his prize bull is very valuable, but where is the value itself located, exactly? What does the bull's value taste like? Is the bull's value heavy or light? Does it have a smell? Obviously, these questions cannot be answered since the entity called "value" does not have a physical existence - just like God. There are quite a number of similar instances that I could offer as examples but suffice it to say that physicalism (the idea that energy and matter are all that exists) cannot account for them and must therefore be untrue.

Is it possible that scientists are wrong about the Big Bang? Or is it possible that perhaps they don't fully understand it?

LOL! It is amazing to me how atheists use science as their shield and ground of defense so confidently -- until it becomes inconvenient to their philosophy to do so. Then, suddenly, scientists aren't to be trusted; they've made a mistake since what they say doesn't line up with the atheistic worldview. Riiiight.

It is at least as possible that scientists are right about the Big Bang as they are wrong about it. There has been no successful challenge to the Theory for more than forty years. The evidence in support of the theory is very strong and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem makes a beginning to the universe an inescapable fact. Nonetheless, since these things don't serve the atheistic viewpoint, they must be discarded as dubious and uncertain. Convenient. Very convenient.

What we know is that the universe has been expanding, strongly suggesting that it all expanded from [something]. That [something] is an infinitesimally small point of matter/energy. We don't know how long it was there before it expanded, and we don't know if anything was before it.

I don't agree. Simple reason reveals at least a couple of basic things we can know about the beginning of the universe. First, something cannot come from nothing. The "small point" didn't develop out of nothing, for "out of nothing, nothing comes." The universe, then, must have had a Cause, a Something that gave rise to it. Second, we know the "small point" could not have had an infinite existence in the past because if it had, we would never have arrived at this moment. If the "small point" had an infinite existence in the past, an infinite span of time would have to be traversed in order to arrive at this moment, which is impossible to do because the span is infinite.

Why? When a single cell splits in two, greater complexity comes from the single cell; nothing transcendent about it. Perhaps our space/matter/energy/time comes from another space/matter/energy/time.

You're speaking of duplication, here, not creation. No matter how far back you want to go with the cycle of like producing like, at some point there must be a beginning to the cycle.

If God is a Being of matter and energy, He would be bound or limited by the very things He is supposed to have brought into existence. But being God, by definition, entails being unlimited, free and above the constraints and boundaries of the physical universe.

In order to create the universe the Cause must be personal.

This I really don't understand.

Consider the following quotation:

"If the cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, water freezes when the temperature is below 0 degrees centigrade; the cause of the freezing is the temperature's falling to 0 degrees. If the temperature has always been below 0 degrees, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So, why isn't the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 13.7 billion years ago? Why isn't it as permanent as its cause?...the answer to this problem must be that the cause is a personal being with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act that is independent of any prior conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Thus, we're brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator." - Dr. William Lane Craig, "On Guard. Defending your Faith with Reason and Precision." pg. 99-100.

Selah.

 

[Question.Everything]

I will remind you that I also contend that logic is an entity and as such it is not just a way of distinguishing reality. Logic does not exist because it has a name, this in itself is illogical.

Logic is not an entity, it is the study of reason. What is your definition of 'entity'?

Logic is an entity that is comprised of laws, one of which is the law of non-contradiciton. If the laws of logic are not laws governing correct reasoning but just descriptions of the way the brain works, then no one could be found guilty being irrational or breaking the laws of logic.

Logic is not the description of the way the human brain works, it's the study of how everything acts in the universe.

Also, if laws of logic merely existed materially in the brain, then logic would not be universally true since our individual brains operate differently and logic would change with each person's brain functions.

Logic does not exist in the brain, it's realized in the brain.

The identification of the origin of logic is one of the tools that helps in determining the existence of God. Like I said, I maintain logic originates from God and I gave the reasons why I believe this is true. If you think logic originates elsewhere, where does it originate?

Logic is inherently part of the physical laws. Wherever and whenever physical laws came into existence, logic was born.

 

[Question.Everything]

It is really hard to quote you with all the font changes you have going on lol.

Evolution is an explanation for positive changes in living substances going through generations.

We are talking about matter and energy, what mechanism is there for matter/energy to make positive changes other than just random chance?

Again, evolution. It's plausible to think that the universe started with the tiniest point of 'anything' that could exist (string theory is the most relevant idea to this now) and very slowly evolved itself into more complexity (2 strings).

It takes a leap of faith to believe that, but I of course play the cheap card and simply say we don't know the answers. But given the evolutionary evidence of the universe/earth we have, it's sensible to say everything evolved from the most simple particle that could exist.

The problem is the notion of: “something coming from nothing” seem inconceivable?

It's a very puzzling question for sure.

Are you making any assumptions?

The only assumption I really make is that the universe exists. Everything else comes from objective analysis.

 

[Hestha]

This discussion is philosophically interesting, trying to explain the origin of logic. This discussion looks very similar to the other philosophical question: which comes first - the chicken or the egg? Though, I would answer the latter question with "the egg", because the chicken may not be a modern chicken unless you count the mother as "chicken" as well. Why must logic have an origin? Maybe it's a tool devised by humans. Or perhaps, it originated from nature. Perhaps, logic is a manifestation of nature.