[cauthon]

Mappo's Travelling Sack, on Aug 18 2009, 02:56 PM, said:

. The greatest trouble I have with design theory is reconciling it with a Judeo-Christian God, not a creator in general.

Care to explain this? I'm not a proponent of design theory such as made the media, so it would be nice to hear your thoughts on this.

[MTS]

Well, it all comes down to the very nature of God. The argument from design is quite adamant in stating that there must be a designer - semantically, if there is a design, then there must perforce be a designer. Now, there is, to my knowledge, only one real argument from design. Paley's original teleological argument uses the harmonious nature of God to explain the creation and operation of the universe - that is, all biological and physical systems complement each other, like the component parts of a watch. Just as the make-up of the watch, complex as it is, implies a designer, so too does the formation of the universe. However, the evidence of imperfect design (such as male pattern baldness), seems to belie this theory. How could God, perfect as he is, make an imperfect design? There's a logical gap there. Also, evolution defeats this argument rather soundly - evolution obviates the need for a designer. It is unclear, though, that evolution on its own could bring about the changes it purportedly set in motion. I for one am skeptical about the ability of nature to better itself without a definable consciousness to guide it. Also, why should nature have to better itself in the first place?

That leads me into the more modern version of design theory, the 'fine-tuning' argument. It states that a designer - let's say God - uses evolution as a tool in order to 'fine-tune' natural species into becoming better survivors. This argument stands up better to scrutiny, as the fact that there is imperfect design such as male pattern baldness is irrelevant; the very nature of the argument suggests that because God is fine-tuning the universe, there must be imperfect design in the interim, else why would there be a need for ‘fine-tuning’? The argument concedes the fact of imperfect design, yet that in itself does not detract from God’s existence, as God is continually fixing this design . What seems most problematic about this approach, however, is the perfect nature of God. If God had indeed designed the universe, then how could He in his perfection make mistakes? Also, the question is raised about why God would need to use evolution as a tool, as, due to his omnipotent nature, could He just not fix it instantly? Hume pointed out - and I agree - that if this argument is to be taken seriously, then perfection must not be ascribed to God, as it detracts from his existence, and defeats every logical explanation for his creation of the universe, as it seems impossible to reconcile a perfect being with the lack of perfection that he supposedly created. However, by reducing God to an imperfect being, you are defying the very concept of 'God', so positing an imperfect God as the creator of the universe is inconsistent with Christian and Jewish theology.

So it would seem that the design argument in its current form cannot reconcile a Judeo-Christian God with perceived imperfections in the universe. However, the theory of evolution does not necessarily disprove the presence of a designer, or make such a being redundant; evolution could be but one tool in its arsenal. Indeed, explaining the complexities of the universe, rather than a single focus on nature, is needed. If there is a designer who has orchestrated the process of evolution, then it would be far more logical to expect that, if there is a 'God', such a being would be an orchestrator of the Big Bang, rather than taking a continually causal role in the process of evolution. But there you encounter problems of causality, first causes and such like...

I guess my point is the design argument cannot argue to the existence of a theistic God on its own, let alone when further arguments are appended to it. Should you accept theistic intelligent design theory as a compelling argument, the Problem of Evil comes into play. Then again, one could argue that God doesn't have to be all-good, etc., to exist in some sense, but by limiting God's power, you are then placing reasonable doubt on the ability of God to create the universe, as there seems to be a logical contradiction with being outside of space and time, yet still being able to exhibit a causal role in the universe. If he is indeed within boundaries of time and space, then where is the proof for his existence?

Anyway, that's how I understand it (or rather, don't understand it ). There's probably holes in my argument, but it's been a while since I've taken an interest in this, so I may have missed some things.

This post has been edited by Mappo's Travelling Sack: 18 August 2009 - 02:11 PM

[Use Of Weapons]

Evolution, together with Occam's Razor, eliminates the necessity for a designer. Evolution is the vehicle for change, and Occam's Razor prevents us from invoking any unnecessary entities to explain phenomena.

[cauthon]

No, I think you are making some good point. Yet, the Judeo-Christian plot states that in the beginning man was perfect ('all was good', after each creation period). And, I know this is a dangerous field to venture into, man was made with a free will, as were all other intelligent creatures. So, while it was good, they had the ability to choose their own path. But just as we must accept the consequences of falling when we step off a cliff, there were consequences when intelligent creatures decided to part ways with their creator. So, desire overtook one angel, and he decided to wreak some havoc in the perfect little world, the humans were placed in. Hence they falled short of the mark (sinned) (has nothing to do with sex imho), and became imperfect, a trait they passed on to their children.

As far as the almighty part is concerned, God would not be almighty if he would let this situation endure. Yet, the bible indicates there would be a reckoning and things would be set right again. Without going into details, that's about the gist of it.

The entire thing does not need evolution to explain things. We do need science to tell us how things work, but that's something different entirely. I'm siding with the 'too complex' idea.

A simple example is the eye. The eye is thus complex it cannot have originated by itself all at once. But what advantage would a non-functional eye have yielded to warrant its continued existence during the course of evolution?

My point being is that evolution requires as much a leap of faith as religion, if not more.

[MTS]

Quote

Evolution, together with Occam's Razor, eliminates the necessity for a designer. Evolution is the vehicle for change, and Occam's Razor prevents us from invoking any unnecessary entities to explain phenomena.

Not necessarily. If one takes a look at the complexities of current systems, not just evolutionary patterns, one finds, in a probabilistic sense, it is far more likely for phenomena to be the cause of a designer, rather than phenomena be the product of chance-based variation and (generally) applicable laws of the universe.

@cauthon, exactly. Evolution is in its own right so complex as to warrant just as much of a probability as that of a designer.

This post has been edited by Mappo's Travelling Sack: 18 August 2009 - 02:20 PM

[cauthon]

jitsukerr, on Aug 18 2009, 04:14 PM, said:

Evolution, together with Occam's Razor, eliminates the necessity for a designer. Evolution is the vehicle for change, and Occam's Razor prevents us from invoking any unnecessary entities to explain phenomena.

Well, turn it the other way around. Having a creator + occam's razor makes evolution unnecessary :-)

[MTS]

But then, cauthon, you would have to argue that evolution doesn't exist, which is a challenging task. Far better for a theory of a creator to include evolution, which is based on a (relatively) satisfactory hypothesis founded on empirical evidence.

This post has been edited by Mappo's Travelling Sack: 18 August 2009 - 03:04 PM

[Use Of Weapons]

cauthon, on Aug 18 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

A simple example is the eye. The eye is thus complex it cannot have originated by itself all at once. But what advantage would a non-functional eye have yielded to warrant its continued existence during the course of evolution?

The eye is a terrible example of your point. There are countless examples in nature of eyes of different levels of complexity, ranging from the simplest patch of light-detecting cells to the ultra-efficient arrangement of octopus and squid eyes. (Our own fall somewhere in the middle.) Each of these levels provides an evolutionary advantage for the species, and each is an example of evolutionary levelling contributing to an organism's overall fitness.

Evolution FAIL, I'm afraid. The evolution of the eye is a superb example of evolution in action.

[Use Of Weapons]

cauthon, on Aug 18 2009, 03:45 PM, said:

jitsukerr, on Aug 18 2009, 04:14 PM, said:

Evolution, together with Occam's Razor, eliminates the necessity for a designer. Evolution is the vehicle for change, and Occam's Razor prevents us from invoking any unnecessary entities to explain phenomena.

Well, turn it the other way around. Having a creator + occam's razor makes evolution unnecessary :-)

lol -- unfortunately, Occam's razor doesn't permit the elimination of necessary and sufficient causes. In the case of nature, evolution is all we need to explain natural phenomena. The addition of a creator is unnecessary, and can therefore be eliminated. Eliminating evolution leaves you with a slew of logical problems.

But of course, my assumption there is that logic is important. You may choose to differ.

[Use Of Weapons]

Mappo's Travelling Sack, on Aug 18 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

Quote

Evolution, together with Occam's Razor, eliminates the necessity for a designer. Evolution is the vehicle for change, and Occam's Razor prevents us from invoking any unnecessary entities to explain phenomena.

Not necessarily. If one takes a look at the complexities of current systems, not just evolutionary patterns, one finds, in a probabilistic sense, it is far more likely for phenomena to be the cause of a designer, rather than phenomena be the product of chance-based variation and (generally) applicable laws of the universe.

Your outrageous promotion of probability to a status overriding that of evidence notwithstanding, you may be correct on a human timescale. However, evolution doesn't operate on human timescales, and from a geological perspective, the skew is quite markedly the other way round.

[cauthon]

Just a note about scale. Genesis only talks about creation of life, not creation of the universe, so please don't assume I'm saying the universe is only as old as life :-)

[Illuyankas]

You are saying the Earth is, though.

[Gothos]

for purposes of the discussion, I'll let myself put in a link to a simply explained fallaciousness of the "watchmaker argument" in complexity.
http://www.stonemake...ment.com/1.html

for those afraid of clicking links:

Quote

The Watchmaker Argument


You may have heard of the watchmaker argument, or watchmaker analogy. It has been described in many different ways by many people, but the basic idea is thus:

Upon finding a watch lying in a forest, you look at its complex features and assume it to be designed (which is correct in this case). Thus, by the same reasoning, we must assume life (which too is complex), must be designed.

Perhaps Steve can examine the forest described in the argument himself:


Steve raises a good point. If trees, and animals, and even the quantum particles that make up the stones are designed, then how can one pick a watch from these countless objects of design surrounding it? If one were to pick up a watch from all the rocks, and plants, and animals, does that not imply that a watch stands out from the rest of these objects as a special case?

Why is the watch seen as such a unique object while the forest surrounding it serves only as background? Simply, life occurs in nature, is self sustaining, and has a mechanism for change and reproduction. Watches do not occur in nature, and do not have a mechanism for change or reproduction. Watches for example, have not roamed the earth for millions of years reproducing and slowly changing over time.



Thank you Steve.

Let’s examine a more common form of this analogy. Someone may point out a complex camera lens and state they know it is designed due to its complexity, and then conclude the same is true for the human eye, which they often state is even more complex than the camera.

Firstly, one should note that regardless of whatever truth the conclusion may hold, the statement itself is a logical fallacy. Let's take a look:

1. A camera is complex, thus it requires a designer.
2. The human eye is complex (even more complex), thus it too requires a designer.

This is a non sequitur. Steve makes those all the time, let's ask Steve.



1. A cupcake is colorful, thus it is delicious.
2. A bird of paradise is colorful (even more colorful), thus it too is delicious.

In both cases we first observe some feature of an object (a camera is designed; a cupcake is delicious). We then try to come up with a reason for this feature (the camera’s complexity; the cupcake’s color). In both cases this reasoning is false, yet we apply it to a different object (the eye, also complex, is designed; a bird of paradise, also colorful, is delicious).

Is it truly complexity that makes an object stand out as designed?



Steve's assertion, however crude, is probably correct. That bizarre rock formation is most likely designed. Would you call that rock formation complex? Not especially. Then what is it about this rock formation that makes it appear designed? Very simply, it is because rocks with that shape, and that arrangement do not occur naturally, and we have no natural mechanism for their arrangement other than chance.

Finally, let us for the sake of argument, accept that the premise is true: Anything that is complex, must then require a designer. Wouldn’t we then by our own premise, have to assume that the designer itself, which is complex by definition, must also require a designer?



If we can assert a magic monkey could exist eternally and then one day design something, then we can equally assert that the universe itself existed eternally and then one day began expanding, or been in an endless loop of expansion and contraction, or thousands of other examples.

[stone monkey]

From both the Judeo-Christian and evolutionary point of view, both the earth and the universe have to be older than life on earth. The complexity argument is misleading imo; mathematically, complexity arises from simplity all the time (take a look at the Mandelbrot Set; very simple equation, infinitely complex result...)

The creator is an unnecessary postulate imo; he begs far more questions than he answers and is therefore useless as any kind of explanation for anything... Philosophically speaking, I would also regard him as an admission of defeat; why bother to even ask any questions about the origins of life and the universe if you believe every answer is going to be "God did it"?

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on Aug 18 2009, 07:04 PM, said:

From both the Judeo-Christian and evolutionary point of view, both the earth and the universe have to be older than life on earth. The complexity argument is misleading imo; mathematically, complexity arises from simplity all the time (take a look at the Mandelbrot Set; very simple equation, infinitely complex result...)

I find your thinking interesting.
Obviously I can only speak for myself, but neither Earth nor the universe has to be older than life on earth, technically speaking;not has to be. All I can be sure of is that how something appears. In the end it's just easier and far less messy to agree that there were possibly some sort of Earth before life on Earth and a universe before that. But ultimately it's a question that is irrelevant. Since God has the ability to make something as it is by just speaking a word, the distinction between how something appears and what it is, is directly relative to what God says it is.

stone monkey, on Aug 18 2009, 07:04 PM, said:

The creator is an unnecessary postulate imo; he begs far more questions than he answers and is therefore useless as any kind of explanation for anything... Philosophically speaking, I would also regard him as an admission of defeat; why bother to even ask any questions about the origins of life and the universe if you believe every answer is going to be "God did it"?

I wouldn't regard 'God did it' as an answer to anything. Lets try to - Q: "What is light made of?" A:"God did it" - nah doesn't work. Just because God creates what is studied, it doesn't mean there are no rules. Even if we imagine there are an unlimited amount of alternate universes, all created by God, and all with different rules, the rules still apply to those universes, and understanding those rules are part of what we are. Of course, God could change those rules at any time, we could imagine even partially, but then we would study those rules instead, would we not.


For the record, I have no read anything before the quoted post, after I left this thread, so I bet I am completely off topic. Just wanted to throw some thoughts in, hope that is okay.

[stone monkey]

Gem Windcaster, on Aug 18 2009, 08:53 PM, said:

Since God has the ability to make something as it is by just speaking a word, the distinction between how something appears and what it is, is directly relative to what God says it is.

So therefore it doesn't matter what we think find out about anything, the duplicitous creator decides what it is and may have decided to hide the truth from us. Presumably as a test. "I'll give you guys rationality, but completely screw you over if you actually use it..." One more very good reason for my assertion that, even were it likely God existed, such a being would most definitely not deserve worship.

God doesn't play dice with the world, he plays Mornington Crescent...

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 18 August 2009 - 08:31 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on Aug 18 2009, 09:13 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Aug 18 2009, 08:53 PM, said:

Since God has the ability to make something as it is by just speaking a word, the distinction between how something appears and what it is, is directly relative to what God says it is.

So therefore it doesn't matter what we think find out about anything, the duplicitous creator decides what it is and may have decided to hide the truth from us. Presumably as a test. "I'll give you guys rationality, but completely screw you over if you actually use it..." One more very good reason for my assertion that, even were it likely God existed, such a being would most definitely not deserve worship.

God doesn't play dice with the world, he plays Mornington Crescent...

You're welcome to see it as such, but for me that isn't the case at all. Not even close.
What exactly are you talking about when you say God has screwed you over? It happens that in this universe there such a thing as free will. You talk about rationality, but if you want to blame God for the bad stuff, then you'll have to give him credit for the good stuff too. I don't see what you are saying there.
No, the thing you call hiding, is our shortcomings and not God's fault. If God is the one that can make us see, and we turn away from him, how can he show us anything if we hide from him? The conditions for receiving the wisdom of God isn't that big a deal, it's completely free. But just look at you, you'd rather live in ignorance than stop being stubborn and blind. What do you think I give up that is so horribly necessary? I want to know this, because I can't understand your thinking there.
To me it sounds as though you say "As long as I do it myself, prove God wrong, then the truth doesn't matter". Rationality in all glory, but the actual truth doesn't seem to bother you, as long as you find something you call truth and throw in God's face. Am I getting this wrong, because it's horrible if I'm right. Tell me I'm wrong. Please.

[Obdigore]

No, Gem,

SM is saying:

'God gave us free will and rational thought, then told us not to use either, but believe without questions in what he tells us.'

[Gem Windcaster]

Obdigore, on Aug 18 2009, 09:56 PM, said:

No, Gem,

SM is saying:

'God gave us free will and rational thought, then told us not to use either, but believe without questions in what he tells us.'

And I'm saying he's wrong. I don't believe without questions, and I am using my free will and rational thought all the time. Funnily enough SM is falsifying his own statement as he writes it. If there was no free will, he wouldn't be able to write that post. As for the rest, I am curious about what he means - since I do believe SM when he says that this is how he feels, and that I must take seriously of course. So back to my questions. If SM feels like elaborating.

[Obdigore]

SM never said there was no free will. Why you think that I have no idea. I did not say there was no free will either.

What he is saying that any god that will give you free will and rational thought, then attempts to muddy or hide the truth as a 'test' is not a god he is interested in worshipping.

Or maybe that is from me and I have SM's position wrong. Either way I think it is a valid point.