Theories of Our Origins: All equally Absurd?

[Laurens]

An entity capable of designing a complex universe would be an incredibly complex entity... It simply begs the question, where did the designer come from? If your argument is that the universe is far too complex to have come into existence by chance alone, then it is an absurd argument because all you are doing is saying 'something complex can't come from nothing... So here's something complex that came from nothing to explain it'

During the Dover trial it was shown that the book 'Of Pandas and People' had simply changed the wording from an earlier draft with used the term creationist, to a later version which contained the term 'intelligent design proponent'... There is even, rather ironically a draft which says "cdesign proponents" where they have rather hastily replaced the term creationist but accidentally forgot to delete the 'C'... A transitional form if you will

ID is creationism, redesigned with the sole purpose of making it sound non-religious and more scientific so that it could be taught to children. They have no real scientific theory, just the same old creationist arguments.

When it boils down to it ID is saying "it was magic" which is not scientific at all vs science which looks at the evidence and derives its conclusions from observing reality without biases. Which one is more absurd? I would certainly argue intelligent design.

 

[lrkun]

Basic information about Intelligent Design

How Discovery Institute Functions

Discovery Institute fellows submit their analyses and proposals for dialogue through seminars, conferences, and debates; they produce reports, articles, books, Congressional testimony, films and an interactive Internet website that helps spread the knowledge of the Institute's ideas. They also consult with elected and appointed officials, business people, academics, media and the general public to show how 21st century humanity can benefit from the principles, policies, and practices advocated by the Institute.

The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature; the principles of representative democracy and public service expounded by the American Founders; free market economics domestically and internationally; the social requirement to balance personal liberty with responsibility; the spirit of voluntarism crucial to civil society; the continuing validity of American international leadership; and the potential of science and technology to promote an improved future for individuals, families and communities.

Fellows, members, board, advisors and staff of Discovery constitute a distributive public policy community, connected through cyberspace, with headquarters in Seattle and an office in Washington, D.C. Fellows are multi-disciplinary in background and approach. A research and advocacy project is selected when it is in harmony with Discovery's mission, when the Institute can make an original and significant contribution to the issue's development and when it is within the Institute's resources. Most issues selected are of national or international scope and fall in the fields of science, technology, environment and economy, international affairs, culture, defense, legal reform, religion and public life, transportation, and institutions of representative democracy, as well as bi-national cooperation in the international Cascadia region.

Financially, the institute is a non-profit educational foundation funded by philanthropic foundation grants, corporate and individual contributions and the dues of Institute members.

Official Website of Discovery Institute

Questions about intelligent design

Well, what can I say. according to Intelligent Design= God is the first cause. The problem is, do we have proof that god exists? Intelligent Design assumes such.

Sometimes I wonder if DI is a cult.

 

[RedYellow]

When you say that a God is necessary to create a universe, or to produce the complexity of biological life, or be responsible for consciousness, you are making claims that you cannot possibly know about each of these entities. Whether or not the world was created by a God, we have the same apparent outcome, which is the universe we can observe right now. It may be that even a God could not know if a universe can exist on it's own, as God would have to not exist to know.

What we have is a universe that is mostly predictable and consistent in terms of behavior. And as an atheist I ask you to believe in no more or less than what is reasonably observable to be true. I ask you to believe in the universe, in reality.

So no, I dont think they're equally absurd. I ask you to believe in the mind and brain as being inseparable. You ask me to believe that the mind can exist independently of the brain. Who has proof, that what effects the physical brain effects the mind equally?

We can't get anywhere if we can't agree that some forms of evidence for what we accept as reality are better than others.

 

[Aught3]

Let's agree that both hypotheses are equally unreasonable in terms of facts and evidence. Atheism would still be preferred over theism on the grounds of making less assumptions.

God created the universe
God somehow exists

Remove the theistic assumptions (red) which, as you say, don't actually offer a good explanation and you're left with the single atheistic assumption.

I'm afraid that doesn't seem accurate. Can atheists avoid these assumptions:

Energy created the universe.
Energy somehow exists.

Yes the atheist can avoid those assumptions. First of all, compare 'God created the universe' with 'energy created the universe'. In the case of God we are talking about an actor taking a deliberate action in order to create the universe out of nothing (or perhaps he randomly invoked energy?). In the case of energy what you are really saying is that the universe came into existence out of a prior state involving some kind of energy. These are fundamentally different statements. Even if they were equivalent, and I'll grant that some models of universe formation do rely on prior states of energy, some models of universe formation literally come out of nothing so it's still an extra assumption.

I think I'll stick to my original formation of the theistic and atheistic assumptions.

 

[lrkun]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but before that, hear my idea.

A simple way to explain reality, whether it's the beginning or the end is this. Conservation of energy. A changed to B. Something changed into something else. Time is not necessary.

>.< Okay hehe, back to hardcore scientific theories.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

Actually I think it's quite reasonable to believe that some being started the universe going. As we cannot see "the other side" of the big bang, then all we can really go on is speculation, however well reasoned. Deism therefore seems to me to be an entirely logical position, although I don't personally see the need for it. Getting from there to Christianity, however, is an entirely different proposition.

There's no evidence to suggest the interference of a god at any time since the big bang, and there's certainly no need to suppose it. The bible is just one of many holy books written by human beings. These people may claim to have interacted with God but we only have their word for it. Even in the case of those who honestly believe they are telling the truth, the brain is a very complex thing, and it's perfectly possible for us to be convinced that we experienced things that never happened. In terms of verifiable physical evidence of a god that interacts with the universe, none exists.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Actually I think it's quite reasonable to believe that some being started the universe going. As we cannot see "the other side" of the big bang, then all we can really go on is speculation, however well reasoned. Deism therefore seems to me to be an entirely logical position, although I don't personally see the need for it. Getting from there to Christianity, however, is an entirely different proposition.

I think this is the part where you violate what constitutes "reasonable" for me. When you use the words "some being" you include a lot of assumptions, such as life, a personality, etc.
I would agree it was reasonable if you had said "something else". But a being? No. I don't buy it.

 

[australopithecus]

Both theories are perfectly illogical and equally unprovable

Intelligent design isn't a theory, nor is any account of theistic creation. Just saying....

 

[mirandansa]

I'm afraid that doesn't seem accurate. Can atheists avoid these assumptions:

Energy created the universe.
Energy somehow exists.

Yes the atheist can avoid those assumptions. First of all, compare 'God created the universe' with 'energy created the universe'. In the case of God we are talking about an actor taking a deliberate action in order to create the universe out of nothing (or perhaps he randomly invoked energy?).

That again is inaccurate in 2 ways.

Firstly, pandeism, among some other forms of theism, holds that God created the universe by becoming the universe instead of creating it out of nothing and as a separate entity from her-/him-/it-self.

Secondly, some non-monotheistic/-polytheistic notions of God such as Tao (道, literally "way") do not refer to an actor taking a deliberate creative action. In Taoism, the very spontaneous creative process as well as metaphysical structure of the universe is considered the ultimate transcendental divinity i.e. God. Hence the idiomatic expression "神神道道" (shén shen dāo dāo -- literally "God God Way Way").

In the case of energy what you are really saying is that the universe came into existence out of a prior state involving some kind of energy. These are fundamentally different statements.

Both "God" and "energy" can be postulated as a prior (primary) state. The statements may well not be fundamentally different.

Even if they were equivalent, and I'll grant that some models of universe formation do rely on prior states of energy, some models of universe formation literally come out of nothing so it's still an extra assumption.

Right, and you said a position that makes less assumptions is to be preferred -- "Atheism would still be preferred over theism on the grounds of making less assumptions". So, should we prefer, on such grounds, the out-of-nothing models over the out-of-something models?

Occam's razor doesn't always apply. Classical physics makes less assumptions and is thus simpler than modern physics, but we today cannot prefer this older paradigm, because it accounts for less newly observed facts than modern physics does. Simplicity is appealing, but sometimes we also have to look for comprehensiveness/complexity if we are to understand reality in a consistent unified fashion.

 

[RedYellow]

Both "God" and "energy" can be postulated as a prior (primary) state. The statements may well not be fundamentally different.

...Except that one of those words has a definition that can be agreed upon, and the other does not by any means.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

I think this is the part where you violate what constitutes "reasonable" for me. When you use the words "some being" you include a lot of assumptions, such as life, a personality, etc.
I would agree it was reasonable if you had said "something else". But a being? No. I don't buy it.

How do you know there isn't a race of multi-dimensional super-beings that create universes for fun? Where they came from would of course be another question, and as folk like Dawkins would argue, they'd have to have come from somewhere. The thing is though that we have no means of finding out, so to me it's all just pointless pontificating. I don't think that there's any practical difference between deism and atheism as a world-view. That's the point I was trying to make.

 

[Aught3]

Firstly, pandeism, among some other forms of theism, holds that God created the universe by becoming the universe instead of creating it out of nothing and as a separate entity from her-/him-/it-self.

Look, theists have made myriad guesses as to how the universe came into being. It's not going to be possible to summarise them all in one go. Still, pandeism believes that god existed and then created the universe whereas (as I have said) all the atheist is assuming is that the universe exists. The statement about Taoism seems nonsensical to me.

Both "God" and "energy" can be postulated as a prior (primary) state. The statements may well not be fundamentally different.

If it's the case that God is a metaphor for the 'energy', then I don't care. That would just make pandesism ontologically indistinct from atheism. If by God is meant a conscious and sentient (i.e. highly complex) force then the statements are fundamentally different.

Right, and you said a position that makes less assumptions is to be preferred -- "Atheism would still be preferred over theism on the grounds of making less assumptions". So, should we prefer, on such grounds, the out-of-nothing models over the out-of-something models?

There are other considerations being taken into account (remember in my first post I granted the questionable premise that the facts and evidence for each position were equivalent) but, all things being equal, then we should prefer the model that postulates a universe from nothing over a multiverse theory.

Occam's razor doesn't always apply. Classical physics makes less assumptions and is thus simpler than modern physics, but we today cannot prefer this older paradigm, because it accounts for less newly observed facts than modern physics does.

All things are not equal in this case. Modern physics has more explanatory power, more evidence, and more confirmed predictions than classical physics. If the God hypothesis managed to acheive these things then it would be preferred over atheism, unfortunately for you it has none of them.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I am a christian and therefore a believer in Intelligent design.

As others have pointed out, this is complete - and you will of course excuse me for being crude here, but I believe it adds to the message - horseshit.

You have just, at the very least, insulted every catholic in existence; that's the largest single Christian denomination right there. You have also insulted many liberal churches, a fair number of Orthodox believers (the second largest denomination), and quite a few moderates.

In fact, I'd be willing to go so far as to say that the only group you're likely to have on your side on this one are right-wing evangelicals and their ilk.

In all fairness to JWW, there are plenty of Catholics who don't believe in evolution... While the Vatican accepts evolution as a valid scientific theory, they don't mandate it as a requirement for Catholicism. You can even be a bible literalist and still be Catholic...

Personally, I think the Vatican would promote bible literalism if it thought it could get away with it but, after the whole Galileo thing, they're a little weary about opposing scientific advancement...

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

I think this is the part where you violate what constitutes "reasonable" for me. When you use the words "some being" you include a lot of assumptions, such as life, a personality, etc.
I would agree it was reasonable if you had said "something else". But a being? No. I don't buy it.

How do you know there isn't a race of multi-dimensional super-beings that create universes for fun? Where they came from would of course be another question, and as folk like Dawkins would argue, they'd have to have come from somewhere. The thing is though that we have no means of finding out, so to me it's all just pointless pontificating. I don't think that there's any practical difference between deism and atheism as a world-view. That's the point I was trying to make.

I don't really see how your wild speculation topped off with a "but can you disprove it" is in any way a proper answer to my criticism that there's more assumptions in "who caused it" than in "what caused it".

 

[Anachronous Rex]

As others have pointed out, this is complete - and you will of course excuse me for being crude here, but I believe it adds to the message - horseshit.

You have just, at the very least, insulted every catholic in existence; that's the largest single Christian denomination right there. You have also insulted many liberal churches, a fair number of Orthodox believers (the second largest denomination), and quite a few moderates.

In fact, I'd be willing to go so far as to say that the only group you're likely to have on your side on this one are right-wing evangelicals and their ilk.

In all fairness to JWW, there are plenty of Catholics who don't believe in evolution... While the Vatican accepts evolution as a valid scientific theory, they don't mandate it as a requirement for Catholicism. You can even be a bible literalist and still be Catholic...

Personally, I think the Vatican would promote bible literalism if it thought it could get away with it but, after the whole Galileo thing, they're a little weary about opposing scientific advancement...

This is true, but I think it is more the presupposition that is insulting. You must believe in ID because you are a Christian - when all Catholics are able not to. The implication being that Catholics are not Christian.

I mostly mention it because my fiancée - who is a former Catholic - was about ready to try and strangle JWW through my monitor.

 

[mirandansa]

Firstly, pandeism, among some other forms of theism, holds that God created the universe by becoming the universe instead of creating it out of nothing and as a separate entity from her-/him-/it-self.

Look, theists have made myriad guesses as to how the universe came into being. It's not going to be possible to summarise them all in one go. Still, pandeism believes that god existed and then created the universe whereas (as I have said) all the atheist is assuming is that the universe exists.

It's ok to assume more than that for the purpose of scientific investigation. If "the universe exists" were really the only assumption a rational mind could allow itself to have in the matter of cosmology, no good scientist would have been able to formulate any research program into the realm of the unknown.

Also, there are theists like some Hindus who don't assume the universe exists. For them, the universe is a dream of gods. If you have a dream in which you win a lottery and then wake up in your bed, you wouldn't say the lottery you won in the dream "exists", right? That's the kind of view some Hindus have of the universe. For them, gods may exist but the universe may not.

Both "God" and "energy" can be postulated as a prior (primary) state. The statements may well not be fundamentally different.

If it's the case that God is a metaphor for the 'energy', then I don't care. That would just make pandesism ontologically indistinct from atheism.

That's like saying iMac-fans are indistinct from iMac-haters because they both think iMac is a computer assembled in a factory. Pandeism and atheism are still distinct worldviews with different qualitative landscapes. Pandeists, similarly to panentheists, take the universe as the manifestation of an on-going sacred process of becoming God again. Theism is the attribution of divinity to something, be it a supernatural guy separate from the universe or the natural cosmological unfoldment. Atheism, on the other hand, is the rejection of such attribution, either negatively or positively. The God question is concerned not only with "where the universe came from physically" but also with "how the universe qualitatively is", because such qualitative evaluation of reality can form a God concept i.e. a cognitive framework via which to appreciate something as the object of absolute reverence, be it personal or impersonal.

If by God is meant a conscious and sentient (i.e. highly complex) force then the statements are fundamentally different.

I agree. And that's not the only possible meaning of God out there. God concepts themselves are so fundamentally disparate within theism in the first place that we can't really pinpoint, out of some sweeping generalisation, the exact categorical difference between the theistic and atheistic assumptions concerning the origin of the universe. I'm aware that many atheists on this forum take "God" to mean only a supernatural conscious being, but that's not the only game in town.

Right, and you said a position that makes less assumptions is to be preferred -- "Atheism would still be preferred over theism on the grounds of making less assumptions". So, should we prefer, on such grounds, the out-of-nothing models over the out-of-something models?

There are other considerations being taken into account (remember in my first post I granted the questionable premise that the facts and evidence for each position were equivalent) but, all things being equal, then we should prefer the model that postulates a universe from nothing over a multiverse theory.

Space devoid of matter has been detected to have far more energy than the entire observable physical universe. In fact, if we don't put arbitrary mathematical limitation on it, the number blows up to infinity, i.e. empty space has infinite energy. If we define "nothing" as "emptiness", then, yes, we can say matter arises from nothing. Reality from emptiness: this view is espoused by Richard Dawkins' close friend Lawrence Krauss among other scientists and by Buddhism and Taoism.

But if we are to prefer this model, that would be not so mcuh because it rests on fewer assumptions as because it makes more sense than other alternatives in the grander scheme.

Occam's razor doesn't always apply. Classical physics makes less assumptions and is thus simpler than modern physics, but we today cannot prefer this older paradigm, because it accounts for less newly observed facts than modern physics does.

All things are not equal in this case. Modern physics has more explanatory power, more evidence, and more confirmed predictions than classical physics.

And that's my point. We prefer modern physics not so much because it's based on less assumptions as because it can account for more things with more accuracy.

Explanatory power is important, yes. But this factor doesn't define atheism.

In fact, this idea that the theism/atheism dichotomy hinges on what one thinks/says about a creator, is a mistake. You can be theistic without the belief that someone created the universe (e.g. the universe emerged from a fluctuation of energy through natural processes as an absolute sacred reverable phenomenon); and you can be atheistic with the belief that someone created the universe (e.g. a group of scientists who were experimenting with a particle accelerator accidentally created a universe). Atheism doesn't necessarily sift a creator from cosmology.

Note that a creator doesn't have to be supernatural. I personally don't believe in any supernatural omniscient omnipotent creator, but i can reasonably conceive a possibility of a natural imperfect being creating a universe as in the above particle accelerator example. Then where would that creator's own universe have come from? It could have come from other than a conscious creator. You see, these scenarios aren't mutually exclusive.

If the God hypothesis managed to acheive these things then it would be preferred over atheism, unfortunately for you it has none of them.

The phrase "God hypothesis" in the matter of the origin of the universe is just meaningless to me. "God" has to be specified. "Yahweh hypothesis", "scientists hypothesis", "nature hypothesis"... these are more meaningful with clearer referents.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

This is true, but I think it is more the presupposition that is insulting. You must believe in ID because you are a Christian - when all Catholics are able not to. The implication being that Catholics are not Christian.

I mostly mention it because my fiancée - who is a former Catholic - was about ready to try and strangle JWW through my monitor.

I'm sorry, you're right. I had mentioned this but my browser blew up while I was writing this post and, in my haste to rewrite it, I had forgotten this point...

JWW's implication that Christians must accept Intelligent Design is stupid. That's clearly false...

I merely wanted to point out that your assertion that this implication is an insult to Catholics is not true. Some Catholics would be offended, such as your fiancée or Ken Miller, but there are plenty who would sadly defend this position. Even the current pope is an advocate of Intelligent Design...

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

A) Big-Bang- Principally, something came from nothing (illogical), and from this something, life emerged through evolution, continued to evolve and has led to where we are today.
or...
B) Intelligent design- A God created all things in the universe, including man, and endowed us with reason, knowledge and all of the qualities that define him.

Both theories are perfectly illogical and equally unprovable, so- why then do we choose one over the other and base our entire beliefs and often world-views on them? If your unaware, I am a christian and therefore a believer in Intelligent design. I will do a follow up containing my reasons for this, hopefully tomorrow, and explain my logic as best I can. Thank-you!

I wonder if JWW hasn't come back because, now that he's been shown that the Big Bang theory is empirically supported, he's been caught admitting that Intelligent Design is "illogical" and "unprovable?"

Furthermore, in what manner is our "entire beliefs" based on Big Bang cosmology? I believe a great many things and none of them are dependent on my acceptance of modern cosmology...

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

I don't really see how your wild speculation topped off with a "but can you disprove it" is in any way a proper answer to my criticism that there's more assumptions in "who caused it" than in "what caused it".

That's because I'm not trying to answer your criticism. What I'm saying is that until and unless we come up with a way of seeing before the big bang or outside our universe, the point is moot. The most well reasoned explanation is as provable as god or my wild speculations. Yes it's more intellectually satisfying to both of us not to posit a god or other super-being, but in terms of practical effects on our understanding of the actual universe as we perceive it, you might as well suggest that it was created by a sentient jellybean. It really makes no difference to anything.

What I'm trying to get to is that when fundamentalists argue "goddidit" in relation to the big bang, this could be the case but the best they can get to from there is deism. Everything that they use to get from that point to their actual position is disprovable or at least inadmissible as evidence as it tends to rely almost entirely on their holy books/revelation. EDIT: Sometimes combined with a wild misunderstanding of science.

 

[mirandansa]

What I'm trying to get to is that when fundamentalists argue "goddidit" in relation to the big bang, this could be the case but the best they can get to from there is deism. Everything that they use to get from that point to their actual position is disprovable or at least inadmissible as evidence as it tends to rely almost entirely on their holy books/revelation. EDIT: Sometimes combined with a wild misunderstanding of science.

That reminds me of the "coalition" formed by Veritas48 & Telemantros & Dawahfilms a while ago (although i don't consider them "fundamentalists"). They intended to make some mutual case for their own different monotheistic Gods, and the result was what appeared to me as little more than a deistic argument for the First Cause.