My Case for Intelligent design behind existence

@Theologikos,

Theologikos;144330 wrote:

Because he/she is claiming that, based off of subjective reasoning, that the universe and everything was made specifically for us. This is incorrect, we are a product of our environment; our environment owns us. It decides who/what survives.

Those reasons are why we are here and not the other way around. It's as simple as this: we are only here in our current state, because universal laws permit it.

Besides, I believe I disproved the notion of a creator in one of my threads: (don't worry about watching the first three videos, if you don't have the time.)

http://www.philosophyforum.com/religion/abrahamic-religions/christianity/8103-god-disproved.html
:a-ok:

Can you prove that there isn't some degree of idealism to the empirical world? You make arguments against the idea of god in that thread, but you do realise that almost ALL religious thought presupposes some degree of ideality or illusoriness of the external world?
If the external world isn't completely separate from ourselves then that immediately limits what science can tell us doesn't it?

@Alan McDougall,

There has always been existence, there is existence and there always be existence, thus given anything that can happen will happen

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;144350 wrote:

I must agree with your reasoning.

Entirely, or just on the anthropomorphic principle? I was wondering if you could critique my position on deities, instead of just agreeing with me (If you agree, that's cool too). :/
I can feel that there is some kind of logical fallacy I am committing, at least in this thread:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/lounge/new-member-introductions/8101-hi-all.html

Between Octobrist and I. Maybe I'm not making a fallacy, perhaps you can help me.
:perplexed:

---------- Post added 03-27-2010 at 02:36 AM ----------

richard_mcnair;144352 wrote:

Can you prove that there isn't some degree of idealism to the empirical world? You make arguments against the idea of god in that thread, but you do realise that almost ALL religious thought presupposes some degree of ideality or illusoriness of the external world?
If the external world isn't completely separate from ourselves then that immediately limits what science can tell us doesn't it?

But of course! They must! How else would they survive this long? Even if there is no need for a deity, or something of the supernatural, to explain everything, we'll make one to find meaning. But I digress. You make a popular point; what if god is completely outside of our reality or out of observable evidence?

It is a good point, but there is a glaring flaw. If that deity cannot be disproved with the concepts of our realm, (time ect.) then nothing from our lexicon could be used to even explain that deity. If I couldn't disprove that her realm needed to be created and that she couldn't have been the cause, then nothing in her realm is logical. No logic can be applied and the only thing she can begat in her realm would be completely inconceivable and illogical itself. So, what's wrong with that? All that means is that we just can't understand her, right? Well, the thing is, we can't even use the term illogic to describe her realm. That creates quite a quagmire. She can't be illogical and she can't be logical, at the same time!. Because we can't use those terms. So now try it with the terms existence and nonexistence.

Now, I know you are thinking "Strawman!" But I was merely covering the popular position that "god's ways are not our ways" and that our logic can't be used on her.

But, the other option is that this deity is logical . . . (what ever else follows doesn't matter) Time does not permit a logical being.

Science doesn't need to tell us anything to disprove a God. That is where philosophy comes in. Of course you can't empirically disprove, with publicly verifiable, evidence that God doesn't exist (hard scientific) but with principles of logic and a bit of knowledge about concepts of time, a deity can be disproved. When people hold the position that God cannot be disproved they are thinking scientifically. It is like saying scientifically disprove that there isn't an invisible undetectable clown on my head! As of now, you can't do that based on what the definition of clown is. If the definition of clown was:
an invisible and undetectable being that was eternal and infinite, we could have a chance at disproving it.

I must say, you got me thinking a bit there, and your criticism is always welcome. If you don't have anything else you would like to add, I think I will add your position to the criticism part of my thread. :bigsmile:

@Alan McDougall,

The universe is more like a great thought than a great engine dont you think?

@Alan McDougall,

The problem for me is Alan you jump to too many conclusions from a reasonable basis. What if I told you that we would by our advance in technology be able to create a universe beyond ours and life would eventually develop to the point it could recreate. Would they look back at us as gods? Why do you constantly have the desire to invent a god, what purpose does it serve? Honestly, why do you need a GOD?

@xris,

[QUOTE=xris;144534] Honestly, why do you need a GOD?[/QUOTE]
Multiple surveys show that about 90% of the human race believes in god or some higher power or spirit in the universe. History indicates that there has never been a culture or society without some form of religion. True, majority belief does not indicate true belief but the question would be why do so many believe and what purpose does it serve for them.

We all believe in things we cannot prove or that lack adequate or fulfilling scientific explanations be it love, truth, beauty, or the good (ethics). There is no more proof that the universe is the result of Jacque Monad's (chance and necessity) or Richard Dawkins (blind, pitiless indifference) than the notion that the universe is dependent on Paul Tillich's (ground of all being, or the essence of existence) or Whiteheads creativity as ultimate principle and process as ultimate reality.

The religious fight about the nature of god, how god acts in the world and what gods relationship to man and the world is. The concept of god gives many hope that there is some justice in the world, that good will ultimately triumph over evil and that life has some higher purpose and meaning than mere hedonism, survival and procreation. The religious are not less intelligent, or less rational, they just look at the world and cannot believe that the universe in all its splendor and glory is the result of mere chance and pitiless indifference.

@prothero,

prothero;144605 wrote:

Multiple surveys show that about 90% of the human race believes in god or some higher power or spirit in the universe. History indicates that there has never been a culture or society without some form of religion. True, majority belief does not indicate true belief but the question would be why do so many believe and what purpose does it serve for them.

We all believe in things we cannot prove or that lack adequate or fulfilling scientific explanations be it love, truth, beauty, or the good (ethics). There is no more proof that the universe is the result of Jacque Monad's (chance and necessity) or Richard Dawkins (blind, pitiless indifference) than the notion that the universe is dependent on Paul Tillich's (ground of all being, or the essence of existence) or Whiteheads creativity as ultimate principle and process as ultimate reality.

The religious fight about the nature of god, how god acts in the world and what gods relationship to man and the world is. The concept of god gives many hope that there is some justice in the world, that good will ultimately triumph over evil and that life has some higher purpose and meaning than mere hedonism, survival and procreation. The religious are not less intelligent, or less rational, they just look at the world and cannot believe that the universe in all its splendor and glory is the result of mere chance and pitiless indifference.

But we are thinking, self searching individuals and this desire should be examined. Im not denying the possibility but the ardent fervour certain individuals, and on occassions me, search for a single entity that fulfills our needs, is not always logical. It makes us imagine rather than concede, we are unable to conceive. I have lived without god, why cant Alan? I see no reason to invent him.

@prothero,

You cannot use those numbers for every region. It's an average.

In Holland only 1/3 believes in God/Allah/JWH
So some Catholics, a few Calvinists and Lutherans and lots of Muslims.
After 2nd WW not many Jews left.

@xris,

xris;144634 wrote:

But we are thinking, self searching individuals and this desire should be examined. Im not denying the possibility but the ardent fervour certain individuals, and on occassions me, search for a single entity that fulfills our needs, is not always logical. It makes us imagine rather than concede, we are unable to conceive. I have lived without god, why cant Alan? I see no reason to invent him.

Well it is not a matter of logic. Humans are both rational and emotive beings. My feelings about my wife are not a matter of logic. Yes we should examine this desire, no doubt, but rational or logical examination will not eliminate the emotive need of many to find deeper purpose and meaning not only in their own lives but in the world at large. I would argue this is an existential quest that derives from being a self aware (including awareness of death) creature in a larger and often unfriendly dangerous world.

I am not a fan of religous extremism or even of fundamentalism. All religous beliefs, in fact all metaphysical assumptions and philosophical speculations (determinism, free will, life after death, god, etc) should be held with a certain degree of humility. Our religous notions should not ignore the truth that science teaches us but science alone does not offer a complete view of of the world or address human concerns and human experience. The answers to such questions lie beyond the methods of science and beyond human knowing with any form of certainty. We should not be killing each other over different visions of god and how god acts in the world.

Of course even without religion people would still be killing each other over power, wealth and territory. It is easy to argue that even religous wars are really over these more profane and secular not sacred matters. Religion is often the excuse more than the cause of violence: for the central ethic in most of the great religous traditions is empathy and spirituality not temporal conquest or violence.

---------- Post added 03-27-2010 at 12:39 PM ----------

Pepijn Sweep;144645 wrote:

You cannot use those numbers for every region. It's an average.

In Holland only 1/3 believes in God/Allah/JWH
So some Catholics, a few Calvinists and Lutherans and lots of Muslims.
After 2nd WW not many Jews left.

You have to be careful how you phrase the question.
God or some higher spirit or power generates much different answers than
God/Allah/Yaweh
but even leaving statistical arguments aside.
It is clear religion in some form holds sway in history and even in most modern cultures and societies. This phenomena deserves some consideration, study and examination.

@prothero,

You can have belief or faith in believing but why a god that is so invisible. I have belief but not a god who chooses not to be seen. I see evidence of an engineered universe but Im damned, if im going to name him or even try to imagine him, this elusive necessity. Believe but dont invent to satisfy your desires.

@xris,

xris;144534 wrote:

The problem for me is Alan you jump to too many conclusions from a reasonable basis. What if I told you that we would by our advance in technology be able to create a universe beyond ours and life would eventually develop to the point it could recreate. Would they look back at us as gods? Why do you constantly have the desire to invent a god, what purpose does it serve? Honestly, why do you need a GOD?

People who currently reject God, usually reject the anthropomorphic idea of one. I think looking at God in a more Platonic light is much more reasonable, and I think once reasoned out, it becomes quite simply necessary; although not as useful in our material lives as most fundamentalists would hope for.

As I study the tradition of God (Plato through Thomas), I seem to feel them speaking of something existing Via Negativa based on the simple fact that there is something missing in the formula for life. As Aristotle pointed out, the efficient cause for things are very often quite obvious, but many times the efficient cause doesn't tell us everything about the thing. There are unknowns in our world, which can be understood to a point, but only as much as what we do know can tell us. As we come to understand more about the world, the "how" seems to be all that is discovered, with the "why" given the backseat, but doesn't intuition often point towards reasons why in our daily life?

Science is very good at getting us to the efficient causes of things, but for the other three which Aristotle used, Science is not as useful. Which is why science no longer uses them, but I don't think that means they aren't necessary.

So I think for the tradition, it is not about needing a God, but understanding the necessity of the "One", as Plato might put it.

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;145037 wrote:

People who currently reject God, usually reject the anthropomorphic idea of one. I think looking at God in a more Platonic light is much more reasonable, and I think once reasoned out, it becomes quite simply necessary; although not as useful in our material lives as most fundamentalists would hope for.

As I study the tradition of God (Plato through Thomas), I seem to feel them speaking of something existing Via Negativa based on the simple fact that there is something missing in the formula for life. As Aristotle pointed out, the efficient cause for things are very often quite obvious, but many times the efficient cause doesn't tell us everything about the thing. There are unknowns in our world, which can be understood to a point, but only as much as what we do know can tell us. As we come to understand more about the world, the "how" seems to be all that is discovered, with the "why" given the backseat, but doesn't intuition often point towards reasons why in our daily life?

Science is very good at getting us to the efficient causes of things, but for the other three which Aristotle used, Science is not as useful. Which is why science no longer uses them, but I don't think that means they aren't necessary.

So I think for the tradition, it is not about needing a God, but understanding the necessity of the "One", as Plato might put it.

Yes let it be of historical interest why men invented god to make them feel secure. Why it was developed to use as a tool of control. BUT why now in 21c should we still be attempting to make new inventions. I am an agnostic, I can wonder but I wont damned invent. Why should any one feel the need?

@xris,

xris;144534 wrote:

The problem for me is Alan you jump to too many conclusions from a reasonable basis. What if I told you that we would by our advance in technology be able to create a universe beyond ours and life would eventually develop to the point it could recreate. Would they look back at us as gods? Why do you constantly have the desire to invent a god, what purpose does it serve? Honestly, why do you need a GOD?

xris I did not invent a God, god is the reason for existence. If you think about it there wwas always something there is something and there will always be something. If you exist why don't you space for god to exist in your thinking?

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;145108 wrote:

xris I did not invent a God, god is the reason for existence. If you think about it there wwas always something there is something and there will always be something. If you exist why don't you space for god to exist in your thinking?

Alan your description is not like any other, so your right and every one else is wrong..Its your description your invention. You are speaking from a point of faith not facts. Just imagine there is no God for a month and you will see his irrelevance. If he existed he would be more apparent than your faith. You are allowed to wonder, to explore possibilities but not invent.

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;145108 wrote:

If you think about it there wwas always something there is something and there will always be something.

What there is or isn't, doesn't depend on what we think. If you want to know about reality, you have to consult reality.

@xris,

xris;145110 wrote:

Alan your description is not like any other, so your right and every one else is wrong..Its your description your invention. You are speaking from a point of faith not facts. Just imagine there is no God for a month and you will see his irrelevance. If he existed he would be more apparent than your faith. You are allowed to wonder, to explore possibilities but not invent.

Noted; xris but at least acknowledge that Atheism is also a faith just like a belief in a God and both are impossible to prove or disprove

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;145112 wrote:

What there is or isn't, doesn't depend on what we think. If you want to know about reality, you have to consult reality.

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;145341 wrote:

Noted; xris but at least acknowledge that Atheism is also a faith just like a belief in a God and both are impossible to prove or disprove

You never learn do you Alan?

When are you going to realize that atheism isn't a belief? It is simply just a lack of belief. You don't require anything for having no belief in something. Other wise you are insisting that I have faith that aliens are not abducting people. No. I simply don't believe aliens are abducting people.

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;145341 wrote:

Noted; xris but at least acknowledge that Atheism is also a faith just like a belief in a God and both are impossible to prove or disprove

"Athesim" is a word with two common meanings. One is derived from the etymology of the word, as the prefix "a-" means "not", so "atheism" is "not theism". A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods, so an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god or gods. This is an absence of belief, not having a belief that there is a god or gods. This is sometimes called "weak atheism" or "negative atheism".

The other common meaning of atheism involves the belief that there is no god. This is sometimes called "strong atheism" or "positive atheism".

Of people who are consistent, all strong atheists are also weak atheists, but not the reverse.

See:

Weak and strong atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With "weak atheism", as it does not involve any belief, it cannot be an example of faith. With "strong atheism", it would be faith (i.e., belief without evidence) if you were correct that no evidence can be had one way or the other. I don't agree that no evidence can be had one way or the other, but if that were the case, all reasonable people would be weak atheists but not strong atheists. No reasonable person in such a case would be a theist.

@Pyrrho,

I think Alan means the determined atheist who is convinced without debate. The fundamentalist who will object to any notion of god. He appears just as entrenched as any faith driven believer...

Philosophy Forum

My Case for Intelligent design behind existence

Quick Links

My Account

able2know