Arguments from Design

[seremela06]

Given the Arguments from Design, do you believe that the creation of the earth supports the existence of God? *IMPORTANT!* The question here is not whether God exists, but whether or not this can be proven by the existence of the earth.

 

[TeddyKGB]

The design argument supports no more than the existence of one or more organizing principles. With regard to the Earth, we can point to the fundamental physical forces as organizing principles. God is superfluous.

 

[seremela06]

The design argument supports no more than the existence of one or more organizing principles. quote]

agreed!

 

[keith99]

There is one huge problem with arguing from design. One first has to know the goals of the proposed designer. If that is known then one can see if the design meets those goals.

To me it seems rather strange that a God would put lots of Oil, which men would be willing to fight over, surrounding 'The Holy Land'.

But perhaps this God wants a final battle where it is unclear if the battle is over Holy issues or rather vulgar thirst for Oil. Stranger things make sense.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Given the Arguments from Design, do you believe that the creation of the earth supports the existence of God?

only if one can show beyond all reasonable doubt that the Earth's formation required God.

*IMPORTANT!* The question here is not whether God exists, but whether or not this can be proven by the existence of the earth.

It can't be proven, but it is certainly possible that the Earth exhibits features that point to a divine Creator. As it happens, no such features have been found. Indeed, there is no evidence for the existence of any deities, Creators or otherwise.

 

[seremela06]

only if one can show beyond all reasonable doubt that the Earth's formation required God.


It can't be proven, but it is certainly possible that the Earth exhibits features that point to a divine Creator. As it happens, no such features have been found. Indeed, there is no evidence for the existence of any deities, Creators or otherwise.

Agreed. I believe in God. I even believe that he may have created the earth. But I would never try to argue that point because there is no real evidence supporting it.

 

[solarwave]

Ill be the odd one out who'll say otherwise then. From what I have read there no 100% proof by this argument, then again there is no full 100% proof of anything except your existance. I do believe though that the laws of physics seem so 'fine tuned' that the probablity of it being by chance is so amazingly low. Ill probably give more detail on this at a later time.

Cya

 

[TeddyKGB]

Ill be the odd one out who'll say otherwise then. From what I have read there no 100% proof by this argument, then again there is no full 100% proof of anything except your existance. I do believe though that the laws of physics seem so 'fine tuned' that the probablity of it being by chance is so amazingly low. Ill probably give more detail on this at a later time.

The laws of physics are so "finely tuned," in fact, that as far as our most sophisticated instruments can yet determine, there exists but one planet in the however-many-billions-of-light-years range of SETI sensors that contains life of any kind.

Some of us need periodic reminders that "the universe exists for humans" is not the default position.

 

[BobW188]

I could not answer the poll because I do not know your definition of "proof."

The most I can say without that is that a person of normal intelligence could reasonably conclude from the appearance of design in the universe that a supreme being created it. That person, learning that the universe began, could also reasonably believe it was caused.
However, another person of equal intelligence can reasonably conclude that the seeming order and mathematical precision of the universe are a result of naturalistic processes; and that finitude does not imply creation.

 

[TeddyKGB]

The most I can say without that is that a person of normal intelligence could reasonably conclude from the appearance of design in the universe that a supreme being created it. That person, learning that the universe began, could also reasonably believe it was caused.
However, another person of equal intelligence can reasonably conclude that the seeming order and mathematical precision of the universe are a result of naturalistic processes; and that finitude does not imply creation.

I am skeptical that opposing conclusions are equally reasonable.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I could not answer the poll because I do not know your definition of "proof."

I don't think she means it in the true epistemological sense .

The most I can say without that is that a person of normal intelligence could reasonably conclude from the appearance of design in the universe that a supreme being created it. That person, learning that the universe began, could also reasonably believe it was caused.

How does the appearance of design in the universe imply a Designer? How does a beginning of the universe imply a Causer?
Indeed, does the universe looks designed at all? Does it look like it began?

However, another person of equal intelligence can reasonably conclude that the seeming order and mathematical precision of the universe are a result of naturalistic processes; and that finitude does not imply creation.

Why would two reasonable, intelligent people come to contradictory conclusions?

 

[BobW188]

1. That which appears to be designed has usually been designed.
2. Things which begin are (or give every appearance of being) caused.
3. Reason is a process, not a result.

 

[TeddyKGB]

1. That which appears to be designed has usually been designed.
2. Things which begin are (or give every appearance of being) caused.
3. Reason is a process, not a result.

Premise 1 is misleading. We observe elements of design in comparison to things we know were designed and designed by a particular designer: human intelligence. Those limitations do not permit scaling up to organisms or ecosystems or planets or galaxies or universes.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

1. That which appears to be designed has usually been designed.

I disagree. The only things in this universe which we know are designed are man-made objects. All other structure in the universe, from the stars to our cells to the atoms, can be shown to form spontaneously without intelligent interference.

But then, it all depends on what you mean by "appears to be designed". Does this appear to be designed?:

2. Things which begin are (or give every appearance of being) caused.

I disagree. There are those things which 'begin' which don't have a cause. I shall once again wheel out the Casimir effect and its underlying principle, spontaneous generation (aka, 'the quantum foam'), as an example.

3. Reason is a process, not a result.

Indeed. But reason doesn't change sporadically. It is by reasoned thought that we know 1 + 1 = 2.