Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[d3r31nz1g3]

There is no evidence for "intelligent design".

Why would there exist a designer pre-existing existence that which specifically designed human reality? It's nonsense.

However, ignoring this technicality and instead focusing on what is actually meant by "intelligent design"--that reality around us is an intelligent and purposeful blueprint...

I'll conjure up an image I've used to make a few different points:



Ignoring all evolutionary reality, there is a massive amount of evidence that humans are 100% a pre-encoded blueprint. Five fingers, five toes, symmetrical...

Now I wouldn't say this evidences "intelligent design", but I would say that perhaps "humans are innate and pre-encoded in time and mathematics itself".

Which is a quizzical concept in the face of evolution. Yet, somehow, I think it remains absolutely true. Humanity as we know it is a pre-destined entity.

[EricPH]

Ignoring all evolutionary reality, there is a massive amount of evidence that humans are 100% a pre-encoded blueprint. Five fingers, five toes, symmetrical...

If our bodies were truly symmetrical, we would have two left feet and two left hands. If we were symmetrical top and bottom, we would have a head at the top and also where our feet are. We are not symmetrical front and back either. Our bodies have around thirty trillion cells, somehow all these cells make up around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons.

Mathematically, I can't see how this could happen without intelligent design.

[Charlemagne]

Arthur Compton, Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist

“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man.”

Max Born, Quantum Physicist

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

[EricPH]

How is evolution mathematically possible without intelligent design?

For about three billion years, life existed happily without jaw bones, vertebrae, limbs, teeth, etc. Small fish might be comprised of a trillion cells. It might take millions or billions of cells to make a jaw bone, billions of cells to make vertebrae etc. How does blind nature randomly mutate millions or billions of cells into each of these shapes?

Symmetry is a massive problem, when you hold both hands in front of you, then you will see that two left hands would not work. You would not fit a prosthetic left hand onto the right side. Blind evolution would have to organise billions of cells into each bone, muscle, tendon, ligament, etc.

The starting point for blind evolution is single cell life, 3.7 billion years ago. So how is this mathematically possible with intelligent design?

[EricPH]

So how is this mathematically possible with intelligent design?

Whoops, should have said without intelligent design.

[Count Lucanor]

Ignoring all evolutionary reality, there is a massive amount of evidence that humans are 100% a pre-encoded blueprint. Five fingers, five toes, symmetrical...

If our bodies were truly symmetrical, we would have two left feet and two left hands. If we were symmetrical top and bottom, we would have a head at the top and also where our feet are. We are not symmetrical front and back either. Our bodies have around thirty trillion cells, somehow all these cells make up around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons.

Mathematically, I can't see how this could happen without intelligent design.

The universe without life is already complex and organized in laws. It is generally agreed that everything in the universe is made of a few fundamental building blocks: fields, particles, forces, etc., and their interactions involve arrangements that we call nature. A natural order, such as life, can emerge from an existing natural order, so the argument for design should be applied to nature in general, without the need to appeal to the complexities of life. The problem is: if the order of nature has to be explained in terms of a conscious designer, then the inherent order in the designer itself must be explained, in other words, a designer of the designer must be posited. This means, of course, that the argument for design does not solve any problem, it is a lazy way of thinking that pushes the problem back to infinity: who creates the creator?

[Charlemagne]

Ignoring all evolutionary reality, there is a massive amount of evidence that humans are 100% a pre-encoded blueprint. Five fingers, five toes, symmetrical...

If our bodies were truly symmetrical, we would have two left feet and two left hands. If we were symmetrical top and bottom, we would have a head at the top and also where our feet are. We are not symmetrical front and back either. Our bodies have around thirty trillion cells, somehow all these cells make up around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons.

Mathematically, I can't see how this could happen without intelligent design.

The universe without life is already complex and organized in laws. It is generally agreed that everything in the universe is made of a few fundamental building blocks: fields, particles, forces, etc., and their interactions involve arrangements that we call nature. A natural order, such as life, can emerge from an existing natural order, so the argument for design should be applied to nature in general, without the need to appeal to the complexities of life. The problem is: if the order of nature has to be explained in terms of a conscious designer, then the inherent order in the designer itself must be explained, in other words, a designer of the designer must be posited. This means, of course, that the argument for design does not solve any problem, it is a lazy way of thinking that pushes the problem back to infinity: who creates the creator?

This does not follow because the Creator created the very principle to which you obviously refer: the principle of causality. Having created that principle, God is certainly not subject to it, though everything God created is.

[Belindi]

Ignoring all evolutionary reality, there is a massive amount of evidence that humans are 100% a pre-encoded blueprint. Five fingers, five toes, symmetrical...

If our bodies were truly symmetrical, we would have two left feet and two left hands. If we were symmetrical top and bottom, we would have a head at the top and also where our feet are. We are not symmetrical front and back either. Our bodies have around thirty trillion cells, somehow all these cells make up around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons.

Mathematically, I can't see how this could happen without intelligent design.

The universe without life is already complex and organized in laws. It is generally agreed that everything in the universe is made of a few fundamental building blocks: fields, particles, forces, etc., and their interactions involve arrangements that we call nature. A natural order, such as life, can emerge from an existing natural order, so the argument for design should be applied to nature in general, without the need to appeal to the complexities of life. The problem is: if the order of nature has to be explained in terms of a conscious designer, then the inherent order in the designer itself must be explained, in other words, a designer of the designer must be posited. This means, of course, that the argument for design does not solve any problem, it is a lazy way of thinking that pushes the problem back to infinity: who creates the creator?

This does not follow because the Creator created the very principle to which you obviously refer: the principle of causality. Having created that principle, God is certainly not subject to it, though everything God created is.

"Who creates the creator?" says Count Lucanor.

Neither who nor what creates the creator. The creator may be an intelligent mind as claimed by Eric, or the creator may be nature as Lucanor claims. in each of these cases the pancreator is not contingent on anything else but is cause of itself.

[Charlemagne]

If our bodies were truly symmetrical, we would have two left feet and two left hands. If we were symmetrical top and bottom, we would have a head at the top and also where our feet are. We are not symmetrical front and back either. Our bodies have around thirty trillion cells, somehow all these cells make up around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons.

Mathematically, I can't see how this could happen without intelligent design.

The universe without life is already complex and organized in laws. It is generally agreed that everything in the universe is made of a few fundamental building blocks: fields, particles, forces, etc., and their interactions involve arrangements that we call nature. A natural order, such as life, can emerge from an existing natural order, so the argument for design should be applied to nature in general, without the need to appeal to the complexities of life. The problem is: if the order of nature has to be explained in terms of a conscious designer, then the inherent order in the designer itself must be explained, in other words, a designer of the designer must be posited. This means, of course, that the argument for design does not solve any problem, it is a lazy way of thinking that pushes the problem back to infinity: who creates the creator?

This does not follow because the Creator created the very principle to which you obviously refer: the principle of causality. Having created that principle, God is certainly not subject to it, though everything God created is.

"Who creates the creator?" says Count Lucanor.

Neither who nor what creates the creator. The creator may be an intelligent mind as claimed by Eric, or the creator may be nature as Lucanor claims. in each of these cases the pancreator is not contingent on anything else but is cause of itself.

Again, God being eternal, cannot be the cause of God. Causality only belongs inside God's creation.

[Count Lucanor]

Ignoring all evolutionary reality, there is a massive amount of evidence that humans are 100% a pre-encoded blueprint. Five fingers, five toes, symmetrical...

If our bodies were truly symmetrical, we would have two left feet and two left hands. If we were symmetrical top and bottom, we would have a head at the top and also where our feet are. We are not symmetrical front and back either. Our bodies have around thirty trillion cells, somehow all these cells make up around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons.

Mathematically, I can't see how this could happen without intelligent design.

The universe without life is already complex and organized in laws. It is generally agreed that everything in the universe is made of a few fundamental building blocks: fields, particles, forces, etc., and their interactions involve arrangements that we call nature. A natural order, such as life, can emerge from an existing natural order, so the argument for design should be applied to nature in general, without the need to appeal to the complexities of life. The problem is: if the order of nature has to be explained in terms of a conscious designer, then the inherent order in the designer itself must be explained, in other words, a designer of the designer must be posited. This means, of course, that the argument for design does not solve any problem, it is a lazy way of thinking that pushes the problem back to infinity: who creates the creator?

This does not follow because the Creator created the very principle to which you obviously refer: the principle of causality. Having created that principle, God is certainly not subject to it, though everything God created is.

What you're arguing is that causality was caused by a causing agent (the first cause), but that is not logically sound, since by definition the act of causation is already implying that which is supposedly being caused. So again you're not addressing the problem of why any order in the universe must be explained with a creation event and a creator of that order, but will not apply the same requirement to the creator itself. You're just pushing the problem of creation to an infinite past. This is an old argument going back many centuries which clashes with the refutation I just mentioned. And we all know what is the escape route: to claim that the first cause does not need to be caused, that some kind of order (called God) must have existed always, but then you're still left with the problem of why can't the universe not have existed always, so we can get rid of the unnecessary god.

[Charlemagne]

If our bodies were truly symmetrical, we would have two left feet and two left hands. If we were symmetrical top and bottom, we would have a head at the top and also where our feet are. We are not symmetrical front and back either. Our bodies have around thirty trillion cells, somehow all these cells make up around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons.

Mathematically, I can't see how this could happen without intelligent design.

The universe without life is already complex and organized in laws. It is generally agreed that everything in the universe is made of a few fundamental building blocks: fields, particles, forces, etc., and their interactions involve arrangements that we call nature. A natural order, such as life, can emerge from an existing natural order, so the argument for design should be applied to nature in general, without the need to appeal to the complexities of life. The problem is: if the order of nature has to be explained in terms of a conscious designer, then the inherent order in the designer itself must be explained, in other words, a designer of the designer must be posited. This means, of course, that the argument for design does not solve any problem, it is a lazy way of thinking that pushes the problem back to infinity: who creates the creator?

This does not follow because the Creator created the very principle to which you obviously refer: the principle of causality. Having created that principle, God is certainly not subject to it, though everything God created is.

What you're arguing is that causality was caused by a causing agent (the first cause), but that is not logically sound, since by definition the act of causation is already implying that which is supposedly being caused. So again you're not addressing the problem of why any order in the universe must be explained with a creation event and a creator of that order, but will not apply the same requirement to the creator itself. You're just pushing the problem of creation to an infinite past. This is an old argument going back many centuries which clashes with the refutation I just mentioned. And we all know what is the escape route: to claim that the first cause does not need to be caused, that some kind of order (called God) must have existed always, but then you're still left with the problem of why can't the universe not have existed always, so we can get rid of the unnecessary god.

But we now know that the universe did not always exist, so it could not have caused itself. That goes against the principle of causality. Creation and Causality are not the same thing. Creation produced a universe in which causality exists. That is, God created causality, so God is still necessary to explain universal causality (not to mention universal laws that are fine-tuned to produce us).

[EricPH]

If our bodies were truly symmetrical, we would have two left feet and two left hands. If we were symmetrical top and bottom, we would have a head at the top and also where our feet are. We are not symmetrical front and back either. Our bodies have around thirty trillion cells, somehow all these cells make up around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons.

Mathematically, I can't see how this could happen without intelligent design.

The problem is: if the order of nature has to be explained in terms of a conscious designer, then the inherent order in the designer itself must be explained, in other words, a designer of the designer must be posited. This means, of course, that the argument for design does not solve any problem, it is a lazy way of thinking that pushes the problem back to infinity: who creates the creator?[/b]

the creation of the universe and life is history, and you can't change history. Either God created the universe and life, or there is no god, you could be a hundred percent right or wrong on the toss of a coin.

How is evolution mathematically possible without intelligent design?

For about three billion years, life existed happily without jaw bones, vertebrae, limbs, teeth, etc. Small fish might be comprised of a trillion cells. It might take millions or billions of cells to make a jaw bone, billions of cells to make vertebrae etc. How does blind nature randomly mutate millions or billions of cells into each of these shapes?

Symmetry is a massive problem, when you hold both hands in front of you, then you will see that two left hands would not work. You would not fit a prosthetic left hand onto the right side. Blind evolution would have to organise billions of cells into each bone, muscle, tendon, ligament, etc on our left side. Blind evolution would then have to make the right, similar, but totally different.

A natural order, such as life, can emerge from an existing natural order,

The starting point for blind evolution is single cell life, 3.7 billion years ago. What tools did evolution have 3.7 billion years ago? How is this mathematically possible without intelligent design?

[Count Lucanor]

The universe without life is already complex and organized in laws. It is generally agreed that everything in the universe is made of a few fundamental building blocks: fields, particles, forces, etc., and their interactions involve arrangements that we call nature. A natural order, such as life, can emerge from an existing natural order, so the argument for design should be applied to nature in general, without the need to appeal to the complexities of life. The problem is: if the order of nature has to be explained in terms of a conscious designer, then the inherent order in the designer itself must be explained, in other words, a designer of the designer must be posited. This means, of course, that the argument for design does not solve any problem, it is a lazy way of thinking that pushes the problem back to infinity: who creates the creator?

This does not follow because the Creator created the very principle to which you obviously refer: the principle of causality. Having created that principle, God is certainly not subject to it, though everything God created is.

What you're arguing is that causality was caused by a causing agent (the first cause), but that is not logically sound, since by definition the act of causation is already implying that which is supposedly being caused. So again you're not addressing the problem of why any order in the universe must be explained with a creation event and a creator of that order, but will not apply the same requirement to the creator itself. You're just pushing the problem of creation to an infinite past. This is an old argument going back many centuries which clashes with the refutation I just mentioned. And we all know what is the escape route: to claim that the first cause does not need to be caused, that some kind of order (called God) must have existed always, but then you're still left with the problem of why can't the universe not have existed always, so we can get rid of the unnecessary god.

But we now know that the universe did not always exist, so it could not have caused itself. That goes against the principle of causality. Creation and Causality are not the same thing. Creation produced a universe in which causality exists. That is, God created causality, so God is still necessary to explain universal causality (not to mention universal laws that are fine-tuned to produce us).

What we know is that the universe did not exist as it is right now, but even when physicists talk about the "nothingness" that was before it came to be, they point to a "something" of which they make simulations based on mathematical equations. In the words of physicist Lawrence Krauss:

"The simplest version of nothing might be empty space...that empty space is actually quite complicated. When we put together quantum mechanics and relativity, two of the foundations of 20th century physics, we put them together, we find out that empty space is actually a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence every second, so quickly you can't see them, in fact if you try to measure them they are not there, but they have an impact that you can actually calculate and predict, and in fact it produces the best predictions in all of physics, it explains why the atoms in your body behave the way they do and the fact of why your body has mass..."

So, there's not really a beginning of the universe, but the beginning of space and time, or what must be a phase in the existence of the universe.

But going back to our philosophical problem, you are now arguing that creation does not involve cause and effect, so there would be no effect from creation, nor there would be a cause of the things created, there is no production of the universe in whatever is meant by creation. That amounts to saying that nature, the universe has no cause external to itself. And then we are back to the same problem: if the universe has no cause external to itself, why would it need a causing agent or a creator? Having an internal systemic order with principles of causality does not demand in any way the existence of a designer, producer or creator of that order: god seems to be unnecessary. In other words, you have now taken causality out of the equation of creation to save god from being created, but by doing that, you have posited an uncaused universe.

[Charlemagne]

This does not follow because the Creator created the very principle to which you obviously refer: the principle of causality. Having created that principle, God is certainly not subject to it, though everything God created is.

What you're arguing is that causality was caused by a causing agent (the first cause), but that is not logically sound, since by definition the act of causation is already implying that which is supposedly being caused. So again you're not addressing the problem of why any order in the universe must be explained with a creation event and a creator of that order, but will not apply the same requirement to the creator itself. You're just pushing the problem of creation to an infinite past. This is an old argument going back many centuries which clashes with the refutation I just mentioned. And we all know what is the escape route: to claim that the first cause does not need to be caused, that some kind of order (called God) must have existed always, but then you're still left with the problem of why can't the universe not have existed always, so we can get rid of the unnecessary god.

But we now know that the universe did not always exist, so it could not have caused itself. That goes against the principle of causality. Creation and Causality are not the same thing. Creation produced a universe in which causality exists. That is, God created causality, so God is still necessary to explain universal causality (not to mention universal laws that are fine-tuned to produce us).

What we know is that the universe did not exist as it is right now, but even when physicists talk about the "nothingness" that was before it came to be, they point to a "something" of which they make simulations based on mathematical equations. In the words of physicist Lawrence Krauss:

"The simplest version of nothing might be empty space...that empty space is actually quite complicated. When we put together quantum mechanics and relativity, two of the foundations of 20th century physics, we put them together, we find out that empty space is actually a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence every second, so quickly you can't see them, in fact if you try to measure them they are not there, but they have an impact that you can actually calculate and predict, and in fact it produces the best predictions in all of physics, it explains why the atoms in your body behave the way they do and the fact of why your body has mass..."

So, there's not really a beginning of the universe, but the beginning of space and time, or what must be a phase in the existence of the universe.

But going back to our philosophical problem, you are now arguing that creation does not involve cause and effect, so there would be no effect from creation, nor there would be a cause of the things created, there is no production of the universe in whatever is meant by creation. That amounts to saying that nature, the universe has no cause external to itself. And then we are back to the same problem: if the universe has no cause external to itself, why would it need a causing agent or a creator? Having an internal systemic order with principles of causality does not demand in any way the existence of a designer, producer or creator of that order: god seems to be unnecessary. In other words, you have now taken causality out of the equation of creation to save god from being created, but by doing that, you have posited an uncaused universe.

No, I have posited a created universe.

God was neither caused nor created, but is eternal. The universe is certainly not eternal.

[Count Lucanor]

What you're arguing is that causality was caused by a causing agent (the first cause), but that is not logically sound, since by definition the act of causation is already implying that which is supposedly being caused. So again you're not addressing the problem of why any order in the universe must be explained with a creation event and a creator of that order, but will not apply the same requirement to the creator itself. You're just pushing the problem of creation to an infinite past. This is an old argument going back many centuries which clashes with the refutation I just mentioned. And we all know what is the escape route: to claim that the first cause does not need to be caused, that some kind of order (called God) must have existed always, but then you're still left with the problem of why can't the universe not have existed always, so we can get rid of the unnecessary god.

But we now know that the universe did not always exist, so it could not have caused itself. That goes against the principle of causality. Creation and Causality are not the same thing. Creation produced a universe in which causality exists. That is, God created causality, so God is still necessary to explain universal causality (not to mention universal laws that are fine-tuned to produce us).

What we know is that the universe did not exist as it is right now, but even when physicists talk about the "nothingness" that was before it came to be, they point to a "something" of which they make simulations based on mathematical equations. In the words of physicist Lawrence Krauss:

"The simplest version of nothing might be empty space...that empty space is actually quite complicated. When we put together quantum mechanics and relativity, two of the foundations of 20th century physics, we put them together, we find out that empty space is actually a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence every second, so quickly you can't see them, in fact if you try to measure them they are not there, but they have an impact that you can actually calculate and predict, and in fact it produces the best predictions in all of physics, it explains why the atoms in your body behave the way they do and the fact of why your body has mass..."

So, there's not really a beginning of the universe, but the beginning of space and time, or what must be a phase in the existence of the universe.

But going back to our philosophical problem, you are now arguing that creation does not involve cause and effect, so there would be no effect from creation, nor there would be a cause of the things created, there is no production of the universe in whatever is meant by creation. That amounts to saying that nature, the universe has no cause external to itself. And then we are back to the same problem: if the universe has no cause external to itself, why would it need a causing agent or a creator? Having an internal systemic order with principles of causality does not demand in any way the existence of a designer, producer or creator of that order: god seems to be unnecessary. In other words, you have now taken causality out of the equation of creation to save god from being created, but by doing that, you have posited an uncaused universe.

No, I have posited a created universe.

A created universe that is not a caused universe makes absolutely no sense. In any case, you still have not showed why it is necessarily created and why necessarily created by an intelligent being. Why wouldn't it be created by a non-intelligent being?

God was neither caused nor created, but is eternal. The universe is certainly not eternal.

Why would a God be necessarily eternal? And why can't the universe be eternal?