The design argument

Originally posted by josephw
If there was in fact a creator, wouldn't you agree that there should be evidence?

It depends on the creator. I think that if there were a creator that paid a lot of attention to detail, and didn't actively try to cover his tracks, then yes, there would be evidence. The current universe appears as far as we can tell so far, to follow a set of laws of physics exactly, and everything within it can be explained based on those laws alone. Where the laws come from and exactly what they are, we don't yet know, and we may never know. What I have not seen is evidence that those laws are specific to some goal ie I don't see any reason to believe that the reason for the laws is some particular outcome, but rather all outcomes are mere consequence of the laws.

Originally posted by josephw
If there was in fact a creator, wouldn't you agree that there should be evidence?

If we assume that God exists and is more or less the Christian God then there seems to be a belief test. If it were obvious that God existed then that would break the belief test. It is entirely consistent to think that the only "maker's mark" in the Universe accessible to us is the Bible, which is hardly incontrovertible evidence. After all, a feature of omnipotence is obviously the ability to hide one's presence against the most determined non-omnipotent detection. The Tower of Babel story in the Bible supports this claim.

Originally posted by DeepThought
If we assume that God exists and is more or less the Christian God then there seems to be a belief test.

I would say that the main reason there seems to be a belief test, is the lack of evidence. ie the God described in the Bible, mostly seems quite happy demonstrating its reality to its followers, it is only when the evidence is lacking that the whole 'belief test' theory is promoted by its followers. Yet those same followers by an large would readily accept and promote any evidence that is found (or they believe is found), and many of them claim to be convinced by evidence.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

An interesting new thread could grow from this, if enough of us have read _Candide_ and some Clemens as a qualifier regarding culpability.

http://literature.org/authors/voltaire/candide/

"Neither need you tell me," said Candide, "that we must take care of our garden."

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/70/70-h/70-h.htm#link2H_4_0001

"O.M. No. There is no act, large or small, fine or mean, which springs from any motive but the one—the necessity of appeasing and contenting one's own spirit."

Say, we could have a spirituality book club.

Originally posted by DeepThought
If we assume that God exists and is more or less the Christian God then there seems to be a belief test. If it were obvious that God existed then that would break the belief test. It is entirely consistent to think that the only "maker's mark" in the Universe accessible to us is the Bible, which is hardly incontrovertible evidence. After all, a featur ...[text shortened]... determined non-omnipotent detection. The Tower of Babel story in the Bible supports this claim.

"If we assume that God exists and is more or less the Christian God then there seems to be a belief test."

Belief test? Do you mean that if one believes he passes the test and then God proves His existence to him?

"If it were obvious that God existed then that would break the belief test."

I think you misunderstand what believing means. One doesn't believe to pass a test, as though by believing one then knows there's a God.

"It is entirely consistent to think that the only "maker's mark" in the Universe accessible to us is the Bible, which is hardly incontrovertible evidence."

It is entirely consistent to think that the "Word of God" may be the only incontrovertible evidence.

"After all, a feature of omnipotence is obviously the ability to hide one's presence against the most determined non-omnipotent detection."

How would you know that about God? Why would you think God is preventing His detection? The exact opposite is true.

"The Tower of Babel story in the Bible supports this claim."

The Tower of Babel story is about man hiding from God by an act of disobedience.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"If we assume that God exists and is more or less the Christian God then there seems to be a belief test."

Belief test? Do you mean that if one believes he passes the test and then God proves His existence to him?

"If it were obvious that God existed then that would break the belief test."

I think you misunderstand what believing mean ...[text shortened]... claim."[/b]

The Tower of Babel story is about man hiding from God by an act of disobedience.[/b]

Well, in your faith a primary requirement is believing in God. Atheists all agree that they have no evidence that God exists, it's not like there is a continuous stream of thunderbolts striking down the unrighteous. Part of the point of faith is that you believe and trust despite the prima facie absence of evidence. So those who desire entry into the Kingdom of Heaven have to believe despite that absence.

You insist that the Bible is the Word of God and is therefore incontrovertible evidence. Because you assert the antecedent as you inevitably draw that conclusion. However if one doubts that the Bible is the Word of God then the conclusion ceases to follow.

Do you deny that omnipotence includes the power to hide perfectly? Are you denying your God's omnipotence?

No, how can building a tower to get a good look at heaven be hiding? You're making up arguments. The entire point of the story is that God produces all the languages of the world in order to confound the project and therefore maintain his invisibility.

Originally posted by DeepThought

Well, in your faith a primary requirement is believing in God.

To experience God that is a primary requirement. To come forward to God one must believe that God is ... obviously.

"But without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing [i]to Him, for he who comes forward to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarded of those who diligently seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6) [/b]

This is a good translation "Come forward" because it indicates that the writer was already in that realm encouraging others to "come forward" to join him.

Atheists all agree that they have no evidence that God exists, it's not like there is a continuous stream of thunderbolts striking down the unrighteous.

That this kind of showy coercive action is not happening all around the neighborhood tonight and every week is not really a good indication that atheism is true.

I have contemplated a account where for 40 days God dramatically manifested Himself to a large gathering of people at Mt. Sinai. You and I might think that such a very dramatic epiphany should solve the matter of God's existence forever. Curiously, it got old and didn't stop the people from wanting to return to Egypt the "iron furnace" of slavery that God had just delivered them from. They got tired of this dramatic manifestation and erected their golden calf to inspire them to go back to Egypt.

God is after something more in humans than just a nod "Okay, Okay God exists." We may have our curiosity satisfied. But God is wanting a deeper relationship than a nod "Okay, God exists. Now on with the show here."

Part of the point of faith is that you believe and trust despite the prima facie absence of evidence. So those who desire entry into the Kingdom of Heaven have to believe despite that absence.

These simplifications have limitations.

By the way, in Matthew's gospel "the kingdom of heaven" or "the kingdom of the heavens" means the kingdom, the SOURCE of which is from heaven. It is not the kingdom up there beyond the clouds that I must go to.

The prayer Jesus taught His disciples to emulate says "Your kingdom COME" rather than "Thy kingdom GO."

You insist that the Bible is the Word of God and is therefore incontrovertible evidence. Because you assert the antecedent as you inevitably draw that conclusion. However if one doubts that the Bible is the Word of God then the conclusion ceases to follow.

In my experience it was meeting Christ first that brought intimate fellowship with God on a personal level. Afterwards I began to come to the Bible, at first reluctantly and with a big filter.

Of course you would be correct to assume that what I heard about Christ initially was from the Bible.

If someone were to press me hard WHY I believe in God, I would have to admit that the real reason is that I met Jesus Christ. God became real to me when I called Jesus "Lord".

No, how can building a tower to get a good look at heaven be hiding? You're making up arguments. The entire point of the story is that God produces all the languages of the world in order to confound the project and therefore maintain his invisibility.

Who you are talking to will have to answer that for himself. I'm just butting in a little.

On second thought, it is a fascinating story which I did not understand for a long time. It seemed so positive that everyone was united. Humans had one language and unity. What could be wrong with this?

Well there is a symbolism going on there. It says that the people burned mud and made bricks for the Tower. This indicates that they burned life to death. All that was living in the soil was killed by burning in order to make this high noble monument to human greatness.

The burning of mud to make bricks points to the killing off of spiritual capacity. All that was God leaning in man was being burned to death - killed off, sacrificed for a vain pride.

The Tower of Babel should remind us of a huge tombstone as far as spiritual life is concerned. Man was united in independence from God. And that can only lead to hell.

God does want oneness but it must be in Him. He admitted that nothing would be impossible to humans in this Godless unity at Babel.

"And Jehovah said, Behold, they are one people, and they all have on language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and now nothing which they purpose to do will be kept from them. Come, let Us go down and there confound their language. that they may not understand one another's speech." (Genesis 9:6,7)

It is not easy at first glance to understand why this cohesion of the human race was opposed by God. In His wisdom "nothing which they purpose to do will be kept from them" must mean the horrible. We must consider a Godless independent world wide unity would eventually be devilish and not noble.

They were, after all, ALL under the deception of Satan who deceives the whole inhabited earth.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You are nothing if not tedious. To some here.

But if you remember Candide in French, good for you.

But it would appear less snooty, if you said it in another commonly used language here.

Originally posted by sonship

Well, in your faith a primary requirement is believing in God.

To experience God that is a primary requirement. To come forward to God one must believe that God is ... obviously.

[b]"But without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing [i]to Him, for he who comes forward to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarded ...[text shortened]... They were, after all, ALL under the deception of Satan who deceives the whole inhabited earth.[/b]

Oy, this thread has now been invaded.

Originally posted by C Hess
Everything that appears to be designed has a designer.
The universe appears to have been designed.
Therefore, the universe has a designer.

This is essentially the argument from design (as I've understood it), and it is a rock-solid argument if the premises are true. So, are they?

We'll assume that by "designer" we mean an intelligent being capa ...[text shortened]... ybe, perhaps have a designer, or not.[/i]

That's the proper conclusion for now, me thinks. 😏

Difficult argument since it is subjective on what can be called designed.
Anyone can stick their heads in the ground and deny anything, or claim it
to be true just because.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Difficult argument since it is subjective on what can be called designed.
Anyone can stick their heads in the ground and deny anything, or claim it
to be true just because.

Logic is not subjective

Originally posted by JS357
The multiverse (multiple instances of a BB followed by a big crunch/bit rip) is plausible and is a general case, of which your idea of a universe that somehow maintains its identity while cycling through a succession of mutually independent lifetimes, is a special case.

So you have reached this conclusion yourself. Most of the time, your cyclic universe wi ...[text shortened]... rses will seem unlikely to their inhabitants, because they don't experience the unfriendly ones.

No, my cyclic universe is not randomly generated so it won't yield life-hostile universes IF the universe doesn't want to be life hostile.

The multiverse refers to a reality with many separate universes, not merely one recycling itself.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have done a lot to refute it:
1. The reason you suspect foul play in your analogy is not based solely on the probability. Therefore the probability claim is not good enough to use it as a valid analogy.
2. You have admitted that you would not draw the same conclusion for other scenarios with a similar probability.

[b]The Lottery Fallacy has been di ...[text shortened]... uch evidence, I will listen. But for as long as you have not done so, your analogy does not fit.

The Rick's analogy was merely to show the fallacy of the argument that because the same thing could arise from two circumstances that the circumstances are equally likely.

But if you want to make the Rick analogy closer to the universe designed or not designed example, simply change the circumstances to wit:

1) Omit Rick altogether;

2) Have the husband hit 22 a 1,000 times in a row (mimicking the possibility that this universe would be life friendly if if was the result of one random draw).


Which would be a more logical conclusion for an observer to draw under these circumstances: that the husband was fantastically lucky or that someone had rigged the game?