The universe is natural, it can't be down to chance. Or can it?

Furion

Well-known member
No, I would not claim this. My view is that the universe is not here by accident or chance.

I think you just don't want to commit.

Another possibility would be necessity, it being the only way it could be.

That is already unobtainable unless you have evidence of a different design.

What about an asteroid in the asteroid belt aimlessly whizzing about?

Surely you are not ignorant of how asteriods came to be and function, their purpose in the universe.

What is this evidence?

If you find something functional, then you will see the design. All effects have causations. All functions bear witness to a functional universe.

I really don't care whether you believe the universe and it's function is designed. But you can see the design, the laws that govern it's elements, etc.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Because you do in fact believe everything to be designed, exactly as I said in my first post that you replied to.

I don't have to believe it, no. I need not commit to any view, and I don't see the Lord telling me I do. I don't claim to know how God did it.

I am willing to allow someone to try to claim otherwise, see what novel idea they have.

When I look around, all I see is design.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
I don't have to believe it, no. I need not commit to any view, and I don't see the Lord telling me I do. I don't claim to know how God did it.

I am willing to allow someone to try to claim otherwise, see what novel idea they have.

When I look around, all I see is design.
I never said that you have to believe it, just that you do. And that means your belief in design is not derived from observation. That would require you to have observed both design and and non-design in order to be able to distinguish the two, and according to you, you never have. So you have no baseline for comparison and are presupposing design rather than observing it.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
I think you just don't want to commit.
I don't know why there is something rather than nothing, it's not a matter of wanting to commit or not. I am however committed to the idea that the universe isn't here by accident or chance, or some kind of fluke.
That is already unobtainable unless you have evidence of a different design.
It's a possibility, i don't know it as a fact.
Surely you are not ignorant of how asteriods came to be and function, their purpose in the universe.
What is their function and purpose?
If you find something functional, then you will see the design. All effects have causations. All functions bear witness to a functional universe.

I really don't care whether you believe the universe and it's function is designed. But you can see the design, the laws that govern it's elements, etc.
I can see order, I haven't been shown design.
 

Furion

Well-known member
I never said that you have to believe it, just that you do. And that means your belief in design is not derived from observation. That would require you to have observed both design and and non-design in order to be able to distinguish the two, and according to you, you never have. So you have no baseline for comparison and are presupposing design rather than observing it.

Incorrect. Because I have not observed it, does not nessitate it doesn't exist.

Your presupposition is it is not designed, even though you've never observed otherwise.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Incorrect. Because I have not observed it, does not nessitate it doesn't exist.

Your presupposition is it is not designed, even though you've never observed otherwise.
Not what I said. You haven't addressed my point, which is that on your view you have never had the experiences necessary to learn to distinguish design from non-design. No Christian ever can, as they believe everything to be designed.
 

Furion

Well-known member
I don't know why there is something rather than nothing, it's not a matter of wanting to commit or not. I am however committed to the idea that the universe isn't here by accident or chance, or some kind of fluke.

I can accept that.

It's a possibility, i don't know it as a fact.

I believe it to be unobtainable evidence for reasons already stated.

What is their function and purpose?

The same as any star or planet. Can solar systems coalesce without leaving behind asteroids? No one knows. What we can see is that they are a part of the natural design.

One could say it is Jupiter arm wrestling with the Sun over ancient artifacts.

I can see order, I haven't been shown design.

A feeble semantical argument. Design leads to order. Order doesn't happen without design.

You believe in the windstorm creating and assembling a 747.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
I can accept that.
Great.
I believe it to be unobtainable evidence for reasons already stated. One could say it is Saturn arm wrestling with the Sun over ancient artifacts.
Maybe. But the history of science is littered with statements of the type, this will never be shown, or that is impossible, only for them to be shown wrong.
The same as any star or planet. Can solar systems coalesce without leaving behind asteroids? No one knows. What we can see is that they are a part of the natural design.
But that's a consequence rather than a purpose.

A feeble semantical argument. Design leads to order. Order doesn't happen without design.

You believe in the windstorm creating and assembling a 747.
Not really. Design can lead to order, but that doesn't mean all order is by design. Snowflakes exhibit order, but the reason for that order is well known and the explanation doesn't include conscious design.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Great.

Maybe. But the history of science is littered with statements of the type, this will never be shown, or that is impossible, only for them to be shown wrong.

You can hold out hope, sure.

But that's a consequence rather than a purpose.

Purposes lead to consequences. The consequences of solar system formation leads to consequences of asteroid belts. A natural progression of design leading to an ordering of mass, gas and little rocks that have no home.

Not really. Design can lead to order, but that doesn't mean all order is by design. Snowflakes exhibit order, but the reason for that order is well known and the explanation doesn't include conscious design.

Yes really. Design leads to order, and snowflakes are another example.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
You can hold out hope, sure.



Purposes lead to consequences. The consequences of solar system formation leads to consequences of asteroid belts. A natural progression of design leading to an ordering of mass, gas and little rocks that have no home.



Yes really. Design leads to order, and snowflakes are another example.
Ok. Snowflakes exhibit order, but you think behind that there is design. Can you demonstrate that this design exists, that there is a creator?

Do you look at everything and think, it has to have been created?
 

Furion

Well-known member
Ok. Snowflakes exhibit order, but you think behind that there is design. Can you demonstrate that this design exists, that there is a creator?

No, I can only use your understanding to communicate with you.

You see the order, you see the design. It is not to point to a designer, it is to point to design.

Do you look at everything and think, it has to have been created?

I look at things to figure out it's design, the order in which it operates, its purpose.

If I can find no design and no purpose to the thing, I may have one of those chance things I'm dealing with. I haven't seen one yet.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
No, I can only use your understanding to communicate with you.

You see the order, you see the design. It is not to point to a designer, it is to point to design.



I look at things to figure out it's design, the order in which it operates, its purpose.

If I can find no design and no purpose to the thing, I may have one of those chance things I'm dealing with. I haven't seen one yet.
I'm trying to figure out what it is exactly that leads you to think something in nature is actually designed. We look at the universe and we see it all fits together. Why does that mean it's designed rather than natural?
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Design of this universe is a matter of religious faith, not logic or credible evidence. They will continue to assert or assume it for as long as they remain religious, and no reasoning to the contrary has the power to get them to reconsider.

As an atheist, I say it's entirely possible that this universe was designed. Until the point at which I see evidence for it, though, I'll continue to point to natural laws and the anthropic principle.
 

Furion

Well-known member
I'm trying to figure out what it is exactly that leads you to think something in nature is actually designed. We look at the universe and we see it all fits together. Why does that mean it's designed rather than natural?

I'm trying to figure out why you don't look at things and discover their design and purpose. A natural design is a design.

What we see is a universe in entropy, on its way to a cold death.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
I'm trying to figure out why you don't look at things and discover their design and purpose. A natural design is a design.
A natural design is not a conscious design, which is how we are using the word design.

To answer, because we have two possibilities, the universe is natural or consciously designed. If I am to be rational, i should apportion my beliefs to the evidence, and here is the key point for me, I see very poor evidence that the universe is consciously designed.

It seems to me, that those who see the universe as consciously designed look at the universe and think, wow, what an amazingly complex thing, it can only be consciously designed. If so, that's not evidence, it's an argument from personal incredulity.
What we see is a universe in entropy, on its way to a cold death.
Some design, right?
 
Top