Evidence for God from Science

In composing this thread, I needed to be careful not to present a contra-argument. Please bear with me, therefore, if I seem a little elliptical in my reasoning:

I take it that the design argument, as expressed by William Paley, is that an item such as a watch, which "its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose" intrinsically raise the presumption that:

there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction, and designed its use,

...and that as the universe in all its glory exhibits a huge amount of symbiosis and design, that it too must have had a maker.

Paley's presumption about the watch is only right if you construe it in the broadest possible sense. The physical artefact we think of as "a watch" appears to have a single designer (or a small team), but this isn't the whole story: the "ontological concept" of a watch - which is what Paley has to be referring to - would be well beyond the comprehension of any single human brain (or small collection thereof).

The invention of a watch assumes the the following inventions:

(a) the very notion of "time"
(b) a numbering system
(c) a horological system (ie 12 hours of 60 minutes of sixty seconds)
(d) metallurgy
(e) glass
(f) the spring
(g) the wheel
(h) the idea of cogs
(i) miniaturization techniques

... and so on. Each of these pre-existing inventions itself assumes a number of prior inventions, and so on and so on. Each of those concepts is a "crane" without which the idea of a watch could not even be conceived.

The invention of a watch is the aggregation of a huge number of tiny inventions over a period of say 4000 years, almost all of which are purely coincidental to the "purpose" Paley sees in a watch (for instance, the devisors of the wheel probably had no conception of time at all).

The point is not to say "therefore there can't be a God" - but rather to stand back and observe that a single inventor faced with inventing a watch from scratch has an absolutely superhuman task. I venture to say that it simply could not be done by any single mortal mind.

But that isn't to say the watch hasn't been wholly designed by mortal minds. Clearly, it has. But this puts the teleological argument in a different light. One might draw a conclusion opposite to Paley's: The more design an item exhibits the less likely it is to be created by a single designer at a single time with a single purpose.

And if a watch is a stupendously clever thing, what about a whole universe!

The teleological argument, therefore suggests two alternatives:

(a) the universe is so complex that no single mind acting alone could possibly have created it, and it must be explicable as the result of a lot of smaller, unconcerted "inventions" which themselves are the result of smaller unconcerted "inventions"; or

(b) a single mind did it, but to do so that mind had to be, to all intents and purposes, omniscient (and probably omnipotent too).

Even if there is no evidence to support (a), the teleological argument presents no empirical evidence for (b). It simply says, if (b) is true, then it is a fairly safe assumption that the mind in question was pretty extraordinary.

That's the easy part. Establishing The Single Mind is a taller order (and note, you're back to square one, since this is what you were trying to prove in the first place). In order to establish The Single Mind you still need to give a credible account for the existence of this single creator, and in fact your problem is if anything worse, since ipso facto this Single Mind must itself be so cleverly designed that it can only have been designed by a designer ... well, you can see the moebius loop for yourself, I hope. (if you invoke method (a) at this point - which is open to you to do - you still need to explain why you didn't do this at the earlier stage and just leave out The Single Mind).

Leaving aside the difficulties with (b), conclusion (a) is far more plausible anyway. This is effectively the Evolutionary programme. Dan Dennett argues it very well in his book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", but I don't want to get into proposing counter arguments to Christianity, so will leave it at that.

I have another way of explaining why it's more plausible. Two actually.

1. King's Cross Station at Rush Hour: I am lucky enough to live and work in London, one of the most fascinating cities on the planet. Every day I have to negotiate Kings Cross underground station at Rush Hour. If you haven't done it, it will be difficult to comprehend what an awesome spectacle this is. There are five underground and at least 9 (and 3/4s!) overground lines passing through the station - and it's currently being extensively re-designed, above and below ground, as well. I would say that a thousand people pass through the (fairly narrow) underground concourse every minute during the hour and a half of rush hour each morning (actually more, since that's only 90,000 people). All travelling fast, places to go, anxious to spend as little time as possible in the station. Lines of pedestrians flow through ticket barriers, interweave, head in different directions, down different escalators, to different platforms, on and off trains, and yet the collision rate is astoundingly low.

Now, imagine the job of calculating and plotting, in advance, the trajectory of every individual in that concourse in just a ten minute period - building, if you like, a computer model of the path every person must take to get from their carriage or exit to their destination carriage or exit, without colliding with any other person. Rather like plotting the trajectory of grains of sand in a sand storm: It would be a hugely complex task, requiring hours of sophisticated programming and not inconsiderable computer processing power. Now expand that to the 7 million passengers who travel on the underground everyday. Or every one of the 14 million commuters each day in London across all modes of transport. The complexity of the problem expands geometrically the more people and possible journeys you introduce, rather like the proverbial grains of rice on squares of a chessboard.

Yet it is perfectly possible to solve this problem without that complex engineering (between us, we commuters manage it every day in London, after all): each person has a single task: get yourself from point A to point B without colliding with anyone. Adjust your trajectory as you go to ensure this. This time, there is no geometric expansion of the problem; each additional person needs to follow the same, simple algorithm. In fact, a few people can have an even simpler algorithm: get yourself from point A to point B irrespective of collisions" and it is still likely they won't collide with anyone else (as long as they only encounter "avoiders" who get out of their way).

The analogy is the same: the entire, symbiotic, dynamic, adapting functioning of the universe could be the product of some initial, utterly, inconceivably, brilliant design, or rather it could be the result of the aggregation of trillions of individual reactions, none of which by itself is particularly remarkable.

2. Communist China and the Wild West: Consider two extreme theoretical models of an economic system:

(i) a centrally planned economy, where a central thinker projects production, likely demand, necessary skills in the workforce, allocation of resources, plans cities, moderates behaviour, and anticipates necessary inputs and outputs throughout the economy

(ii) an anarcho-laissez-faire economy, where the government says to the population, broadly, "ok, fellahs: away you go!"

Now, which of these is more complex to design and manage? Which is more efficient and effective? (Hint: If you're not sure, read Wild Swans before answering!)

Let me start by asking, with this subject, what hypothesis does have any empirical evidence to support it? In matters of philosophy, as I believe this one is, nobody has the benefit of repeatable experiments which can prove or disprove their beliefs. This is unfortunate, because I for one, would be quite glad to know the answer unequivocally.

My personal belief is that there was a creator of the universe, and I can't imagine how this will ever be proven or disproven. Even if one day we complete science, and we have answered all the questions that can be experimentally shown to be true, we'll have models for how everything works, but we'll still be left with questions of why everything works that way. We'll still sit there wondering, why is the kinetic energy of an object one half times it's mass times the square of its velocity. That's the phenomenon we observe, the quantity that gets conserved in the conservation of energy, but we won't know why. That's just one example, most every other law of thermodynamics and physics would leave us with similar "why" questions either on their own merit or through transitivity.

Now, there are a ton of great points in the above arguments and I can completely understand why someone would be skepticle about the idea of a creator. To me though, looking at the arguments for the watch provokes a different reaction. The main thing is that its creation was absolutely not accidental. It didn't just spring into existence from thin air. Even though there was a long string of designs and inventions preceding it, it doesn't detract from the fact that it was, in fact, designed.

So when I read through the arguments, I'm left not with a feeling of "therefore there is no God." Instead, I'm left with a feeling of "therefore there is either one God or many gods." Taken with the historical, circumstantial, and experiential evidence for Christ, I'm left with my belief that there is one God and that He created the universe.

Now let me take a turn to the hypothetical. Let's say that we have exactly one human, and that human is the smartest human that has ever lived. Now, let's give that human a really long time to live. Arbitrarily, let's give them 3 million years to live and since we're in the world of make-believe let's say that they never sleep and can't die prematurely and have an insatiable desire to advance their knowledge and figure things out. What limit can we put on what that human could accomplish? Is it conceivable that that one human could make a watch, or something on the same order of complexity, given that they had long enough to think about it? I think they probably could, even though I proactively concede that this scenario is far from a perfect example. But if it is possible for such an insignificant intellect to create something so relatively complex with a lot of time, what could something with an infinitely greater intelligence to do with an infinite amount of time?

Anyway, it's a very interesting post, thanks for sharing your perspectives.

Chris L.

A2C
Thanks for your considered and articulate response.

A2C wrote:Let me start by asking, with this subject, what hypothesis does have any empirical evidence to support it? In matters of philosophy, as I believe this one is, nobody has the benefit of repeatable experiments which can prove or disprove their beliefs

My questions are philosophical, but for Christianity to compete as an explanatory hypothesis, it needs to be more than that - it needs to be scientific. Obviously there are plenty of examples of scientific hypotheses supported by empirical evidence. Now as I mentioned in another thread, I am not looking for direct evidence (eye witness accounts etc), but I think I am entitled to ask for circumstantial evidence. And to be scientific, the circumstantial evidence should ideally be unequivocal, - that is, not consistent with any explanation other than intelligent design by a single creator. I guess the position I tried to sketch out above is that on a thorough analysis, the teleological argument just as coherently (more, in my view) can be used to argue the presumption that there can't have been a single creator: that dividing down to fundamental, simple blocks, rather than multiplying up to a single sophisticated one, is the key to understanding how the universe came to be.

I want to be very clear that I'm not trying to disprove God; only to disprove that this argument necessarily supports (let alone proves) its existence.

A2C wrote:Even if one day we complete science, and we have answered all the questions that can be experimentally shown to be true, we'll have models for how everything works, but we'll still be left with questions of why everything works that way

I dare say you're right. But isn't that the case whether or not it transpires that God was behind it all? Let's accept entirely, for a moment, the Christian account of the creation of the world. God created everything, from the numberless stars in the heavens down, as a closed, brilliant system. I still have a question: Why? Is he like some celestial model railway fanatic? And note I haven't even got to that hoary old chestnut, "who created God" (and why, for that matter).

I don't deny for a moment that skeptical, scientific and atheist theories of the universe completely fail to answer this question, and indeed are preternaturally unable to. But so is religion. I think the opposing sides should call a truce on this issue and agree that, holistically, however you look at it, the universe just doesn't have a reason. For a number of reasons a Christian won't want to accept that, though, because it looks like a decisive tip of the scales in the skeptic's favour. I reserve judgment.

A2C wrote:My personal belief is that there was a creator of the universe, and I can't imagine how this will ever be proven or disproven

I respect your belief totally, particularly as you acknowledge that it isn't susceptible to empirical argument. That is the most justified basis for a belief in God, and I won't try to argue against it. Just as a dyed-in-the-wool marxist will never persuade a free-marketer of his views (or vice versa), this is the point where a skeptic and a christian can and should simply agree to disagree. The only point I would make, and it isn't a metaphysical one, is that your belief, while genuine and plausible, isn't scientific.

A2C wrote:To me though, looking at the arguments for the watch provokes a different reaction. The main thing is that its creation was absolutely not accidental. It didn't just spring into existence from thin air.

The view I set out above challenges this. The final act of creation wasn't accidental - the particular arrangement of cogs, and springs, and numbers on the face - but virtually everything other invention in the broader conception of "a watch" was incidental to the enterprise of designing a watch: The invention of luminous paint, the wheel, leather, the buckle, the spring, the idea of time, horology, and so on - none of these concepts were devised with a watch in mind. As a matter of substance these are, to my mind, far more fundamental to the existence of any watch that the final act of creation and assembly of the parts. You just cannot conceive of a wristwatch if you don't have a conception of time. I couldn't agree more that "It didn't just spring into existence from thin air" - it was the process of thousands of years of unrelated, unconcerted industry. Isn't claiming the existence of a supernatural creator who designed it "just like that" really a subtle and beguiling way of saying "it sprang out of thin air", though?

What limit can we put on what that human could accomplish? Is it conceivable that that one human could make a watch, or something on the same order of complexity, given that they had long enough to think about it?

This is a good thought experiment and it is certainly helpful to your case. Can I probe it though: is our superman alone throughout the millennia, or is he interacting with a (presumably transient) society? If he's interacting with society, is he allowed to borrow any ideas from society at all?

Thanks again for a very thought provoking post.

Hello,

It seems that BER and A2C have an interesting discussion going. If I may put my 2 cents in, I would like to answer why God created the universe.
He created it for His glory. Genesis 1:31 tells us that after God created the universe and man, "...He saw everything that He had made, and behold it was very good." Until man sinned in the Garden of Eden, he enjoyed companionship with God and has been trying to connect with God ever since. He sees God in creation, but because he has sin in his heart he suppresses the truth and denies Him. Romans 1:18-21 explains: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things He has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened."

Really gives you something to think about, doesn't it? The only way for mankind to return to God is through His son, Jesus Christ--not through any argument from science. To answer your question, I don't know any hypothesis that has empirical evidence to support it. That's why I don't care for empiricist epistemology; it is rationally invalid. Those who try to defend biblical beliefs from science or logic or philosophy are just arguing their opinions against the opinions of the unbeliever who is free to reject them. That is why one must argue from the the truths of the Bible--as God's Word, it is the only true authority.

Having said that, I do find the Transcedental Argument for God (TAG) interesting, as it is the only worldview that can provide the preconditions of intelligibility. I'm not sure how it can be used to argue the presumption that there can't have been a single creator.
Take (any) p
Show that q is a necessary condition of the intelligibility of p
Therefore q
p can be any fact at all; q is God
How could this be used to "prove" more than one creator?

Sylla

Hi everyone,

Oops! I guess I didn't read the text of BRE's argument closely enough and mistook the word teleological for transcendental. My apologies.

As far as the teleological argument goes, it is only one of several design arguments. And there are numerous responses both pro and con against all of the design arguments, Consider the argument that states we can infer a cause from an effect (e.g., creation must have a creator). One could argue that one can infer a cause from an effect only if we see the cause and effect go together when we experience the effect (e.g., no one was there to see the creation of the universe). Then one might respond in this way: That assumes we can infer from an observed A to an observed B only when we frequently see As and Bs together, but scientists often infer theoretical entities which have never been seen. Furthermore, according to Swinburne, When observed As have a relation R to Bs, it is often reasonable to postulate that observed A*s similar to As have the same relation to observed and unobserved B*s similar to Bs.

As one can see, there is no end to the arguments and their responses. It is impossible to prove or disprove God from science, logic, philosophy or any other discipline. Only God's Word, the Bible, can help answer that question. Of course if one wants to argue for the sake of arguing or for intellectual stimulation that is fine (I enjoy a good controversy myself). But please just be aware of your motivations. I believe that everyone who visits this website for answers already knows in his or her heart that God exists. Many will deny Him but will never be at peace until they submit to Him. In return, He will give you love and eternal life. Why not go to God's Word and find out what He has to say?

Sylla

Sylla wrote:As one can see, there is no end to the arguments and their responses. It is impossible to prove or disprove God from science, logic, philosophy or any other discipline...

Sylla, that's all I was really trying to say, so I guess on this score we agree. However, the conclusion I draw from this is somewhat different from yours.

For one thing, it's not proof, but evidence we're after.

The fact that God cannot be disproved isn't especially interesting. There are an infinite number of things which can't be disproved, and all most all of them are mutually exclusive (for example, the various different religious and spiritual accounts of the origin of the universe). However, it isn't possible to prove mutually exclusive theories: only one can be right. [I should say I use "prove" as shorthand for "be consistent with all recorded empirical data" - I realise that scientific rules are only rules until they're broken]. So what is interesting is what can be proved, and which "proofs" can be shown to be fallacious. I think the teleological argument is one which can be shown to be fallacious. You seem to agree with me.

If the grounds for believing a certain proposition are erroneous, at some point a rational person must abandon belief in that proposition (or stop being a rational person).

The teleological/design argument (I use the two words synonymously) has, to my mind, been misunderstood as being strongly supportive of the supposition that God exists. The purpose of my post was to illustrate that the same argument, if analysed thoroughly, tends to run contrary to that supposition - since the more complex the design, the complexity of creation geometrically increases, the sheer, mind numbing, complexity of the universe almost by itself rules out the possibility of a single creator, or even a large multinational team of them. It doesn't, quite, but it seems to me to be a standing eight count at least.

Sylla wrote:...Only God's Word, the Bible, can help answer that question

There is no logical grounds to defend that statement. It's illogical, it's circular, and it's plain daft. What you're saying is not materially different to this:

"How do you know there's a God?"
"Becuase the Bible says there is"
"How do you know the Bible's right?"
"Because God says it is".

If that sort of logic satisfies you then you're welcome to it, but I don't think there's any point us continuing to have a discussion. Nor do I think a "God From Science" ministry is the place for you, as this is a manifestly unscientific, irrational view.

Sylla wrote:I believe that everyone who visits this website for answers already knows in his or her heart that God exists.

That thought may give you comfort, but I wouldn't bank on it.

Sylla wrote:I would like to answer why God created the universe.
He created it for His glory.

What glory did God have prior to the creation of the Universe? what did s/he actually do for that infinite period of time? Why did he only create the world 4,000 years ago? Did he make it just so as he could have a fan club of people grovelling to him? These are rhetorical questions, by the way.

Sylla wrote:...Show that q is a necessary condition of the intelligibility of p...

I am assuming the syllogism from which this line comes is the transcendental argument, with which I'm not familiar. But isn't the premise I've quoted above a rather eggregious question-beg? You can't use P to prove Q if one of your premises is "Q is a necessary precondition for understanding P"!

In any case the arguments I developed in my first post about the geomoetrically progressing unlikelihood of a single creator would tend to directly undermine that premise.

Sylla, it sounds to me like you're not really interested in actually examining or defending the evidence. That's your preprogative, but I suggest there isn't much to be gained by us talking. If I'm to be persuaded, you'll have to negotiate my scepticism and leave it intact as you go. You've not managed that by a long chalk.

Blind Electric Ray wrote:

Sylla wrote:...Only God's Word, the Bible, can help answer that question

There is no logical grounds to defend that statement. It's illogical, it's circular, and it's plain daft. What you're saying is not materially different to this:

"How do you know there's a God?"
"Becuase the Bible says there is"
"How do you know the Bible's right?"
"Because God says it is".

If that sort of logic satisfies you then you're welcome to it, but I don't think there's any point us continuing to have a discussion. Nor do I think a "God From Science" ministry is the place for you, as this is a manifestly unscientific, irrational view.

I think perhaps you read too much into Sylla's words--I'm not sure. I thought Sylla made some very honest admissions, and I can respect his/her? simplistic approach. I also think people should take more note of her appeal to: "please just be aware of your motivations." My experiences suggest to me that people generally don't ever come to hold to a certain paradigm based on a "rational" undertaking, and so it is important to realise what "experiences" in our past have influenced our current beliefs and who we are.

In addition, I disagree with you that this would not be a place for Sylla. As a moderator I believe this "is" the place for fideists such as Sylla, with the exception that such people will not put down or insult those who are into "scientific" and "rational" talk. The board is not just a place for the later rational type, but also for Christians who desire some stimulation, to strengthen their faith or encouragement within it. As long as they aren't going to condone rational discussions, and that they can understand some people are more "thinking" types rather than "emotional", then they are entitled to their opinions and quite welcome to participate and learn.

Kurieuo.

Hi BER,

I see that we are now taking off the gloves. But that is O.K. because now I know that the truth of God's Word is starting to get to you. However, don't for a minute imagine that I am easily intimidated. This is not your website and I can and will write here anytime I please. The only person who has a right to edit me is Kurieuo. Of course if the heat is too much for you, you can always get out of the kitchen (so to speak). But I hope that won't be the case.
First, as a matter of fact, there are certain religions, such as cults, that can be disproved because of their blatant contradictions and questionable history. I won't name any because I don't want to offend, but if you care to research some of the cults you will see what I mean.
Second, I never said that the teleological argument is fallacious. I said that I don't know any hypothesis that has empirical evidence to support it. Now that I have done more research I have discovered that some forms of impiricism are compatible with theism. Earlier I was speaking of the rather "crude" forms of empiricism with positivist criterion that cannot be empirically verified and thus are self-refuting. I apologize that I did not make myself clear.
Third, I didn't agree with you that the teleological argument can be disproved. You seem to read a lot of your own opinions into what others say. Your conclusion that you have proved the fallacy of the teleological argument is erroneous. The sheer complexity of the universe does not "almost by itself rule out the possibility of a single creator." It seems that is what you want to believe and have convinced yourself, but I doubt if any sensible person would agree with you. And that is certainly not what the Bible says (Romans 1:18-21).
Fourth, as for the transcedental argument (TAG): Yes, of course it can be rescued from begging the question. TAG is not inductivist, as it is an indirect argument instead of a direct one. TAG proves (within a high degree of certainty) that the non-theist worldview is false, which proves that the theist worldview is valid. To rephrase, TAG does not assert the necessity of 'p' being true, as direct induction must, for its argument to maintain its force.
Fifth, you cannot say that the Bible can't answer your questions if you haven't read and studied it (preferably with someone who can help you interpret it). To use a hypothetical example: Suppose the existence of a book that was the only book about the Civil war written by a soldier who fought in every battle of that war and knew every detail of that war. (I know, not possible--but bear with me). And the majority of other books written about the Civil war referred to this one book as being authentic. Suppose this one book was authoritative, literate, and beautifully written.
Where would you go to find answers about the Civil war? Of course, you would read the one book. You might also read other books about the Civil war and you might even try to find out if the one book was authentic. But you wouldn't condemn the one book without having read it. Yet this is what you are ready to do with the Bible. Now who is being illogical? As for your "rhetorical" questions--you seem to intensely dislike God, whom you know almost nothing about except for your many misconceptions. Do you think you are being fair to either yourself or to God?
Just some things for you to think about. I hope there are no hard feelings.

Sylla :)

You both seem to be keeping the heat well-curtailed, but I sense it could easily break out into insults . So I just thought to post and say take a few breathers if needed, but lets continue to keep the points relevant to BER's topic of discussion.

Thanks,
Kurieuo.

Let's accept entirely, for a moment, the Christian account of the creation of the world. God created everything, from the numberless stars in the heavens down, as a closed, brilliant system. I still have a question: Why? Is he like some celestial model railway fanatic?

Okay, I just have to acknowledge a great quote when I hear one. God compared to a celestial model railway fanatic, that one made me laugh out loud for several minutes. To seriously attempt to answer you question, though, I openly admit that I have absolutely no idea. I have about as much idea of why God created the universe as my cat has about why I sit endlessly at my computer typing away. Really I am sitting there making software that serves some purpose to me, but I'd imagine to my cat it just looks like I'm randomly punching keys and staring at a screen. So again, why did God create the universe? Not sure, but I'd be so interested to know the answer to that question as well.

Take (any) p
Show that q is a necessary condition of the intelligibility of p
Therefore q
p can be any fact at all; q is God
How could this be used to "prove" more than one creator?

Well... yes what you have stated is logically correct. But from a purely pragmatic standpoint, God being a necessary condition for the Intelligibility of any P isn't a fact. It is a belief, and as a Christian I believe that you are right, but we've got to be careful that as Christians we don't take our beliefs and proclaim them as facts to people who don't share those beliefs. As soon as we do we lose credibility and we run the risk of perpetuating the (incorrect) belief that Christianity is just for people who are too dumb to see that it's a bunch of irrational nonsense.

I am assuming the syllogism from which this line comes is the transcendental argument, with which I'm not familiar. But isn't the premise I've quoted above a rather eggregious question-beg? You can't use P to prove Q if one of your premises is "Q is a necessary precondition for understanding P"!

Sure you can. All mammals have a heart. (Having a heart is a necessary condition for being a mammal.) A horse is a mammal. Given that Fred is a horse, prove that Fred has a heart.

If the grounds for believing a certain proposition are erroneous, at some point a rational person must abandon belief in that proposition (or stop being a rational person).

Yeah, this one seriously bothered me at the very begining of my walk with the Lord. I really thought the only way to be a Christian was to abandon rational thought, to turn my back on science, and to believe in the irrational. It really, really bothered me and I felt extremely conflicted. I remember it was one of the first times when I really felt like God was real and cared about me. In just a few seconds' time I felt all that conflictedness wash away from me. I felt like in that moment God revealed a message to me, and the message was: "I made you a rational person, I have given you the logic, and I wouldn't make you choose between [Me and Logic.] Don't be burdened by this anymore, just believe that if I am real I will be able to transcend your logic, and you will only be able to conclude that I am real."

Now, it's a rather lengthy story on how God made good on that promise. The important thing is not really how He made good on it, but that He did in fact make good on it, and that now I believe. If you really want to know if God exists, just ask Him. Believing in God is a rather big step from not believing. I personally found it a much smaller, but incredibly useful, step to believe that if God is real, then He won't expect me as a rational person to believe in Him blindly. So I just sat down and prayed for that. Openly, honestly I told God that I wasn't sure if He was there. I told Him that I believed that if He was there then He would hear my doubts and I prayed that He would reveal Himself to me, that He would just let me know that He existed. No amount of arguing with Christians would have ever convinced me, nothing they could have said would have made me believe. What it took was just a tiny step of faith, I didn't even have to believe in God. I just had to believe that if He was there, then He would let me know He was there. And He did, and I can tell you that my life is much much better because of it. There have been moments where it felt like God was shining love directly onto me, and I tell you I have never experienced anything better. I really hope that anyone who is skeptical will just try with an open heart to reach out to God. Then just watch over the next week or so, see if God reaches back. Really, what is there to lose? And if there is a God, wouldn't you want to know the love He has for you? Okay, before I start sounding more evangelical than I already have I'll stop here.

You guys all have some very good points, thanks for such an interesting discussion.

Chris L.

Ber:

Sorry if some of this has covered but I could only quickly scan your post on my way to work. One point I would make is that you misunderstand the basic idea of the design argument. It is not to show which god or gods created something but on to show that it is more probable that it was created than that it came about by random chance. Whether 1 or 101 gods created it docent matter, the point is to show that intelligent design was involved. After that is established then a person can check any of the various religious accounts of creation to see if they align with what we can see of the evidence around us. Another flaw that I think I saw what that you assume because it often takes mankind many years and many different people to accomplish a complicated task that an omniscient, omnipotent eternal being would have to use the same method.

Just a couple of quick thoughts

Jeff

Well!
I was kind of giving up hope on this thread, but you've (er..) rekindled my faith! Good work all of you - this is good, meaty stuff.

Sylla wrote:I see that we are now taking off the gloves. But that is O.K. because now I know that the truth of God's Word is starting to get to you. However, don't for a minute imagine that I am easily intimidated. This is not your website and I can and will write here anytime I please.

Whoa now: easy, Tiger. I'm not wanting this to get personal. I tried to restrict my criticisms to your arguments - perhaps I wasn't careful enough about how I expressed them. Anyhow, I have no interest in intimidating anyone, or aggravating anyone (except maybe Troy, because it's kind of fun, in the same way using a Smart Bomb in Defender used to be). I know it's not my website, and I very much look upon myself as being a guest here at the pleasure of the moderators, given how my views don't toe the party line. I didn't mean to suggest you shouldn't write here - of course you may do whatever you like - but that your views, as expressed, didn't have a lot to do with a scientific take on Christianity. They do strike me as fideistic. I don't think that's a bad thing, unless you're trying to persuade me on the grounds they're not.

Sylla wrote: Your conclusion that you have proved the fallacy of the teleological argument is erroneous. The sheer complexity of the universe does not "almost by itself rule out the possibility of a single creator." It seems that is what you want to believe and have convinced yourself, but I doubt if any sensible person would agree with you. And that is certainly not what the Bible says (Romans 1:18-21).

I don't think I've ever said I've disproved the Teleological argument. I've demonstrated it doesn't, by itself, present any evidence one way or the other for the provenance of the universe, and have noted that what it does do is raises the stakes: if there transpires there was a single maker, then Teleology makes it more likely that it will have some of the attributes assigned to God by Christianity. This is a concession I didn't expect to make, but I guess I'm just being magnanimous! But I think the flip side of that is that the very complexity of the universe makes it less likely that it was created by a single maker. There being a single maker requires an extraordinary amount of sophistication of design, and there's no evidence for that at all (I have never met a Christian can answer the question "who made God?", much less "How" or "Why". Without non-infintitely regressive answers to these questions, the theory that an omnipotent God created the universe has no explanatory force whatsoever.

Your repeated reference to the Bible for confirmation suggests you might not have grasped my point: The Bible is not evidence for the belief in God but rather the source of the belief in God. Without the Bible, you would not believe in the Christian God. You couldn't. There would be no manifestation of the Christian God to believe in. To claim any probative value in the authority of the Bible as to the existence of God, or his constructioin of the universe, is viciously circular.

Here's an example: let's say you are an advocate for a defendant in a libel action. Your client is alleged to have publicly alleged that the plaintiff is a sheep worrier. You're pleading "justification": admitting that this is what your client said, but arguing that it isn't a libel because it's true.

The only witness you intend to present is your client, who will take the witness stand and say "I saw the plaintiff worrying sheep". You have no other evidence.

Do you expect to win the case?

Sylla wrote:TAG proves (within a high degree of certainty) that the non-theist worldview is false, which proves that the theist worldview is valid.

Sylla, you'll have to set the argument out in full, as I'm not familiar with it, and I really don't have a handle on it at the moment.

Sylla wrote:Fifth, you cannot say that the Bible can't answer your questions if you haven't read and studied it (preferably with someone who can help you interpret it).

I'm afraid your assumptions about how little or how much I have read and studied the Bible are a long way off. I was baptised, educated and confirmed an Anglican. I sang for two years in a Church Choir. I attended religious services four to five times a week for five years of my secondary education. I read art history and philosophy at University, and considered metaphysical and iconographic questions for the five years I was at university. I am now at the stage in my life when I have to go to lots of christenings. I sit in the back pew and flip through the Old Testament looking for outrageous statements. There are plenty.

Your comment about needing help with interpretation of the Bible is telling. It is, apparently, the divine word of God. It shouldn't need any interpretation - it should ring like a perfect golden bell with every person on God's green Earth. Yet there are as many interpretations of the meaning of the Bible as there are Christians on this planet (more in fact, since non- Christians can interpret it too). Let's not get onto the question of subjectivism in interpretation of texts, because we'll be here all night. The very fact that no-one can agree on what the bible means is compelling grounds for believing it is a decidedly earthbound text.

Sylla wrote:As for your "rhetorical" questions--you seem to intensely dislike God, whom you know almost nothing about except for your many misconceptions. Do you think you are being fair to either yourself or to God?

I really don't see what in my questions portrays any sentiment about God, other than curiosity. I have no idea who or what God is, so how am I supposed to like or dislike him/her? These are perfectly earnest, and fair questions.

Kurieuo wrote:My experiences suggest to me that people generally don't ever come to hold to a certain paradigm based on a "rational" undertaking, and so it is important to realise what "experiences" in our past have influenced our current beliefs and who we are.

I totally agree with that, and I certainly don't except myself from that criticism. But again, that tends to militate against metaphysical or ethical objectivism, doesn't it? Also, in terms of "experiences", would you agree it is fair that a lot of evangelical Christians (many of the people on this site, indeed) have had a defining single "experience", often at a vulnerable point in their lives, which has brought them into Christianity, rather than having drifted slowly into it? You tend not to see the same pattern in, for example, evolutionary Biologists.

BER wrote:I am assuming the syllogism from which this line comes is the transcendental argument, with which I'm not familiar. But isn't the premise I've quoted above a rather eggregious question-beg? You can't use P to prove Q if one of your premises is "Q is a necessary precondition for understanding P"!

Sure you can. All mammals have a heart. (Having a heart is a necessary condition for being a mammal.) A horse is a mammal. Given that Fred is a horse, prove that Fred has a heart.

To translate that back to the creation argument, this argument for the existence of God is:

P1: For there to be living things to be conscious there must be a God.
P2: Humans are living things
P3: Humans are conscious
C: There must be a God.

Note the rather dead-giveaway first premise. Do you not think that rather begs the question?

Really, what is there to lose?

Rather a lot, in my view. Start with all my Led Zeppelin LPs. That's just the tip of the iceberg. The bit that really bites is the moral code (this is what I secretly think all religions are really about: behaviour regulation). More to the point, I just can't conceive of the idea of a non-physical God. I just don't understand it. I can't see how it would work, what good (ie utility) it would do, what it would be like, or why it is necessary. I have a bunch of questions about our universe that I don't know the answer to, but just saying "God did it" doesn't answer them. I would rather just say "I don't know". God just seems like make-believe.

Jeff wrote:[The design argument] is not to show which god or gods created something but on to show that it is more probable that it was created than that it came about by random chance

Let me try to explain another way. In the universe, a lot of things seem to be in a sort of self-regulating equilibrium, right? For example, a planetary system; a well-ordered financial market; an ecological system; even a swimming pool full of water. What about a city: A city is a great example.

I take it you wouldn't argue that it is God (rather than fluid dymanics) that determines that all the water in a pool doesn't stay down one end.

I take it you wouldn't argue that it is God (rather than the actions of the thousands of Market participants) that drives the Dow higher or lower.

I take it you wouldn't argue that it is God rather than the competition for resources between competing life forms that determines the exact makeup of an ecological system (actually here, I suspect I'm on less solid ground in terms of your beliefs, but I still think I 'm being reasonable).

I take it you wouldn't argue that it is God (rather than millions of people over thousands of years, contructuing railway lines, invading each other, haivng fights, making love, building churches, digging sewers, selling their wares, driving taxis, building high rises, collecting rubbish) that determines the exact physical, geographical, socio-political and geo-political character of a city like Rome.

Now, if you break things down into smaller systems, which are themselves equilibria or smaller systems, which are equilibria, do you see that you are scattering the "design" of, for example, an ecological system over potentially billions or trillions of participants, none of which is acting randomly (each is trying to survive), and none of which has any intention to design, or even any intelligence.

If you can take extraordinarily sophisticated, heavily "designed" systems and explain them in this way, in terms of more simple systems, doesn't it stand to reason the simpler systems will also be explicable that way, seeing as they're less complex?

The aggregation of all these little equilibria creates the appearance of overall intended design, where in fact there is none. What is revealed by this analysis a far more complex machinery underlying it all, which of itself makes it clear just how impossible a job it would be for a deliberate creative act. And isn't that simply marvellous! Isn't that far more wondrous discovery than the easy, shrug-shoulders answer "oh, there's a guy we can't see, we can't hear, we can't touch, who's all knowing, all powerful, has been there for ever, and he did it all"? Doesn't that strike you as a really dumb explanation for something so wondrous? And isn't it all the more suspicious when the same person adds, "and by the way if you don't sing All Creatures Great and Small AND MEAN IT he's going to send you to HELL"?

Ber:

It could be argued that every one of the examples that you cited in your reply to me indicates design and not chance. The fluid dynamics you talk about results from very specific properties that govern the actions of fluids. I am sure you would argue that this is just due to the properties inherent to those materials, and to an extent I wouldn't agree with you more. But then the question is where did those specific properties and laws come from. Did there arise from the nothingness that was there before the universe existed? The amazing amount of fine tuning in the various properties of materials in the universe that come together to allow life to exists is awe inspiring. You might try a book called "Natures Destiny" by Michael Denton. It shows how even the surface tension of water has to be just so to allow life to exist. That is just one among hundreds that he goes through.
The ecological system you describe is a perfect example of design within animals and plants that allows them to adapt to changing environments. As we learn more about DNA we find that encoded within the code are sequences that turn on or turn off various traits depending on the type of environment that they have to live in. Where did this code or information come from, chance? There is no known naturalistic process that would allow a DNA molecule to assemble from non-living material. In fact the formation process goes so much against natural chemical processes that without enzymes to catalyze the procedure, it would break down long before anything would build up.
As for the city comparison that is of course a perfect example of design.

To try and break everything down into some simple basic component may sound good but does not always work practically. For example I think you would agree that rolling 12's on two dice 100 times straight for all practical purposes would be called impossible. Or even flipping coins and getting heads 100 times in a row. However on any one flip the coin or dice have a much more practical chance of coming up with the proper number or face. In the end though the total results would still be just as impossible (or unlikely if you like). The same could be said about the make up of the universe to allow for life on even one planet. I am sure you have looked at the various requirements on this webpage, so I won't go into them. And suffice it to say that these requirements are child's play compared to what is needed to get life from non-life. From my studies I find it much more likely that there was (and is) an intellect behind the construction and maintenance of the universe.

As for the "hell" part I will only say that there are consequences for any actions or decisions we make. The choice is yours.

Jeff

Jeff

But then the question is where did those specific properties and laws come from. Did there arise from the nothingness that was there before the universe existed?

I can see where you're going but I think it's a blind alley: every substance has to have some property or other - it can't just have no properties - so I don't think the existence of a particular molecular structure (or whatever) can be cogent existence of anything unless you can say that the specifics of that particular property (as opposed to another possible property the substance could conceivably have) point unequivocally to to a divine creator.

I guess you could have two answers: the circular one, that the very need for any property is exactly the point and that in itself proves the need for a god - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you wouldn't be that desperate - and the "evidence from fine tuning" one that you allude to below.

But for "fine tuning" to work you still have to mount a case that a single creator is a better explanation for fine tuning than anything else, such as an algorithmic "equilibrium" model. I don't think it is: the very point of an equilibrium is that it does fine tune itself automatically and without any intelligence: any change in an equilibrious [?] environment will lead to a reallocation of components (since the equilibrium will be thrown out) which will cause the environment to be temporarily volatile until a new balance is restored. Of course, it is possible that the change in balance might lead to the elimination of all the components (if a rebalanced equilibrium isn't possible), but since the very nature of an equilibrium is that the components have necessarily varying different "interests" (I used that in the broadest possible sense), this isn't terribly likely. If a virus wipes out most of the lions in the Kalahari, then the zebras will flourish, until the grass runs out, they'll get fatter, and those lions who survive will have much greater available food resources etc etc.

Also, compare to the model of the free market versus the central planned economy. Which is more analogous to a top-down, god controlled universe? Answer: the centrally planned economy - no question. But which is more finely tuned? The free market. Without a doubt. Just ask survivors of the cultural and agricultural revolutions in china how responsive their "god-like" economy was when famine hit in the 1950s.

Note also that the creation account can't account for such dynamic adjustments like this, unless you are prepared to have the Celestial Model Railway Freak continually attending to his model, anticipating changes in equilibria (some of which might be extremely subtle or indirect) and pre-compensating for them to keep the ship afloat. That doesn't quite square with Christian orthodoxy, which I think holds that God got it right first time - I can't remember anything from my bible classes about the creation process lasting any longer than seven days, let alone being ongoing. Yet clearly the nature of our world is changing. What role does God have in that?

Now this might, nonetheless present positive news in one respect - in that it - if the divine creation model is shown to be right (and it doesn't by itself show it) it supplies some grounds for thinking that God might be not only all powerful and all-knowing, but also still around, and in constant attendance on the planet - but the bad news is that it makes the task of being single handed creator that much harder, exponentially, than it already seemed to be.

It just seems totally implausible to attribute all this complexity and sophistication in design to a poorly drawn, completely unexplained, invisible, intangible idea, simply as a result of a collection of unrelated scrolls written a long time ago, when there is a more plausible explanation which doesn't require a fairy godfather.

...I will only say that there are consequences for any actions or decisions we make

This is a cheap shot, Jeff: positively Trojan in its undertone. Your implication is that I'm going to hell for not believing, so I had better mend my ways. You're losing the argument if you resort to tactics like this.

But you've raised it, so let me have my free shot at it:

Any God who would damn someone eternally for considered, and reasonable views like this, just because they happen to be wrong, is no merciful and loving god, and if that's heaven, I'll take hell. The music will be better there anyway. Veiled threats like this don't worry me a bit.

Matter of fact I think this "fear of the consequences" - encapsulated by Pascal's Wager - is what drives a lot of people's belief in a Christian God. This is hardly a coincidence: it seems to me that the threat of the consequences is squarely and centrally the hook on which the Christian faith is founded. But it's no reason to believe in God.

I'm off on holiday for a bit, so i'll be quiet for a week or two. Play nicely now!

Ber;

I will answer your second point first. I made not implication of where you are going to spend eternity. That is between you and God. I merely stated the fact that there are consequences to any actions we take. Whether it is speeding, theft, murder or the simple failure to do something. The creator of our universe has given us guidelines and laws (through the commandments or the sermon on the mount) to show us how far we have fallen from our initial state of perfection and that we cannot get back on our own. If we choose to reject the only way that he has offered (essentially subjecting our will to his) to come back into his fellowship then he has every right to keep you from his presence. He leaves it entirely in your hands. It has nothing to do with you questioning or even doubting, for he is more than willing to answer those that are earnestly seeking the truth.

On to your first point, this is not a circular argument but a mathematical one, which you seem to like. It is obviously true that everything has to have certain properties and while we should not be surprised to see the anthropic principle in the “design” characteristics of the universe that leads to life, since we are here to see it but we should be surprised to be here at all. The reason for this is that as we have studied the properties that are required for life (especially intelligent life) we are finding that hundreds of characteristics of the universe have to be “fine tuned” for this to happen. These range from the “cosmological constants” to the position of the planets, galaxy and solar system within the universe to the surface tension of water (ala Michael Denton's book “Natures Destiny”). These are just a couple of examples. And this is where your going down to the simplest denomination examples falls down. You belie the complexity of attaining the structure involved. I will try and explain again using the example previously used. If you are rolling a pair of die it is true that on any one roll you should not be surprised to see any particular number come up. Some may be more likely than others but relatively still a chance for any of them to come up. However if time after time the same number keeps being rolled, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the die have been rigged to come up on that number every time (intelligent design). That is the basic premise behind the intelligent design movement. Is it more probable that all of these characteristics have been designed into the universe or that they randomly came together from a random explosive creation event? We as humans may not be able to fathom a being who has this much power or intelligence but that does not mean that we cannot recognize design characteristics. If you want to really get your head spinning with the complexity of design then look at a simple living cell. I will state flat out that there is no know way for even the simplest living components to come about by a naturalistic bio-chemical process. In fact everything we know from science mitigates this from happening without DNA already being available to control the process. This is not a “god of the gaps” statement (I don't know how it happened therefore god did) but a scientific one. Mathematically it is nil to impossible to have all the characteristics lined up to allow for life to exist on even one planet and all the scientific evidence is against a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. If you still want to hold to that belief despite the evidence, feel free, but you have more faith in an unknown process than I do in an unseen intelligence. Just because a being of such magnitude is difficult if not impossible to fathom completely does not prove the non-existence of a being. It is more difficult to imagine there not being one especially looking into the origin of life.

Hope you had a good vacation.

Jeff