| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/29/2006 10:36:15 AM | ... then, since God is a complex being, God must have been designed by a higher designer, ad infinitum.
So, where does that chain stop? Can it? Not and maintain the validity of the argument. Or, must we believe that God evolved from nothingness? If God can evolve, then why not any life, such as us?
Alternatively, can we simplify things and say we don't know? Not that we will never know - perhaps someday we shall. Perhaps, we can stop at the Big Bang, as we don't currently know how that happened. All we do know is that something happened and gave rise to life that is able to reason and question, and experience wonder.
I don't think faith and reason are incompatible, only that faith begins where reason cannot provide answers. The boundary is fluid and ever-changing.
Your thoughts? | |
|
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/29/2006 10:39:16 AM |
If God can evolve, then why not any life, such as us?
Good question..I'd argue the same *unfortunately I don't have an answer for you*
only that faith begins where reason cannot provide answers.
That's exactly true. | |
|
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/29/2006 10:44:38 AM | If we accept that God is the predisessor of everything, then God cannot be created. If we accept that Gods were always there, then this makes it final, and something we accept as truth, but cannot prove it.
If on the otherhand we believe that God evolved..then many questions continue, what did God evolve from, and what did the "from" evolve from and so forth. It would be a never-ending assessment. | |
|
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/29/2006 12:16:40 PM | god is eternal,
humans are mortal.
god is forever, having no begining nor end
humans are temporary, having begining and end.
if a god created a god, then another god would of created that god, and so on.
this is the law of humans, not of gods. | |
|
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/29/2006 1:21:46 PM | | Matter and energy are infinite. They have neither an ending nor a beginning. Humans are mearly one pattern of matter and energy. By the god argument we could also say that matter and energy have always existed as well thus negating the need for a god. | |
|
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/29/2006 1:54:13 PM |
If God can evolve, then why not any life, such as us?
Who's to say that we don't evolve to something higher upon our deaths? And I'm not talking godliness, but even simple awareness? We as humans are stuck with only one set of perceptions for our own mortality -- we're born, we live for a certain (and relatively short) period of time, then we die. We have built-in assumptions that our minds and souls have to have bodies grounded on Earth to exist. Maybe death is just the rude awakening that can show us that there are "other worlds than these." But that's pure speculation on my part, and just something I enjoy thinking about. :)
I also agree with Lord Dave, in that I believe matter and energy are infinite. But I take that a step farther in believing that all living things are bound through that matter and energy and upon our deaths we all return to the source. We're all made up of the same cosmic goop anyway.
I don't think humanity will ever figure out the pattern, and I'm not sure I'd want us to. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/29/2006 8:03:03 PM | energy can not be created or destroyed... this is fundamental science.
From a cosmological point of view, this apparently is not true as the universe
originated from someplace beyond the big bang. From a nothingness...a perfect
state of being. Something 'violent' put a rapid end to that.
God does claim to be the Alpha & the Omega. Seem's like someone beet us
to our curiousity. | |
|
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/29/2006 9:21:00 PM |
Your thoughts?
If I were an infinite God who could create anything....maybe I would create a world that is not infinite and in order to do that create a thing called "time," a system of measure of existence in this finite world. And since my creation is limited, he would not understand things outside of his finiteness. Or not be able to comprehend it. His mind would always be limited to his finite world where things have a beginning and end and ruled by "time." It may not seem logical to all that something could exist outside man's finiteness because man would have to have a "free will" with the ability to think freely. This way if one chooses to worship the creator, then he has done so by his own accord and is not controlled or manipulated by the infinite God. I could create a world that everyone just worships me and is controlled by me, but if I do that.....have I really created anything that would have "value" to me if I know they are doing it because I created them to do it? And, hence "pull the strings." If I was very pompous, I might find pleasure in that. But it would be more rewarding to create a people who make a choice, so that if they choose to worship....they really do choose. So, with this free will mechanism and the inability to see beyond his finiteness, what are his options? His options and choices of faith are many. | |
|
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/29/2006 9:34:50 PM | 'If complex things require a designer....' is a false premise.
Any conclusion (true or false) follows from a false premise.
"All men over 6 feet tall play the piano.
Bob is over 6 feet tall.
Therefore, Bob plays the piano."
The above argument is logically valid. It's *wrong* (not 'sound') but it's a valid argument. The first premise is false. Maybe Bob does play piano, maybe not, but you can't know.
--R. | |
|
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/29/2006 9:47:02 PM | Tsur, I don't see an "if" statement as a premise, true or false. It is merely an assumption, a conditional statement.
For the record, I agree with what Lazyboyz and twobits said. Now, allow me to step "outside the box" for a second-- if complex things do not require a designer, is the concept of god more logical, then? | |
|
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/29/2006 9:51:11 PM | ...I might add, if energy can be created out of nothingness, the 'creator' of that
energy MUST exist today as this would be mucha a part of the reality that is known
today. | |
|
| |
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/30/2006 9:30:41 AM | Tsur, yes, that is one of the points I was trying to make - that the initial premise I stated COULD lead to absurd results that would show that the initial premise is faulty.
I am NOT saying that God does not exist, nor am I saying that God DOES exist. We make assumptions about God at our own peril. I think dogma, for example, is an institutionalized assumption about what we truly cannot KNOW. | |
|
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/30/2006 3:08:59 PM | | Know what you know until there is something you do not; preferably something that can be proved. Science is not in the pocket of theology and vice versa. | |
|
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/30/2006 3:37:43 PM | twobits, if we can't comprehend that outside of our finiteness, then how come we even have the concept of god? How come we have any religion at all? And how come said god could communicate with us via a burning bush? Just interacting with us on our level would make everything it said virtually meaningless because the meaning we would get would be vastly different (or most likely vastly different) from the original meaning.
Example: Try explaining astrophysics to a 5 year old. | |
|
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:38:33 PM | | The original question is valid within the context of discussions about ID and irreducible complexity, where theists wish to use the complexity of "created" things to prove the necessity of a creator. Every sunday school class had that obnoxious, far-too-intelligent child who always asked, "But who created God?" | |
|
| |
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/30/2006 10:27:31 PM | I was that child. It's a good question, but probably can't be answered either theologically or scientifically.
Well, isn't it true that the there should be remnants of whatever caused the big bang
would have to be observable in the reality of today? And if not, perhaps science is
looking in the wrong direction when they should be looking at a more metaphysical
direction like a conscious mind as the causation? Science may be failing us
because their discipline refuses to look with broader eye's. It's myopic. | |
|
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/31/2006 10:33:41 AM | There are indeed remnants of the Big Bang observable today - it's the cosmic background radiation. It has been carefully mapped and continues to be mapped in greater resolution - it is an important factor in various cosmological models of the development of the universe.
However, my point above was that we do not know (as yet, anyway) and may not be able to know the origins of the Big Bang. It is at least as likely to me that it came from nothing (quantum mechanics allows for such things) as that it was created. It seems more elegant that it came from nothing than that it was created, because invoking a creator pushes back the answer one more level and begs the question of what created the creator. That was part of my original thought in this thread.
To address your other point about the breadth of science - that gets into the definition of science, and science is not about metaphysics or theology. Read the thread on 'Creation vs. Evolution' for some really good information on that topic! | |
|
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/31/2006 10:38:14 AM | There are indeed remnants of the Big Bang observable today - it's the cosmic background radiation.
You misunderstood; i was referring to the causation of the big bang - not the
big-bang itself. The bang was the aftermath...I'm not concerned with it.
Where is the remnant of the causation of the big bang? The reality of what
we observe today must include that remnant...from my understanding. If
it can't be found then science needs to stop being myopic and consider
other possibities. It can't just stand their with it's mouth wide open and
throwing up it's hands and claim it'll never be figured out. | |
|
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/31/2006 11:18:32 AM | It is tiring to hear the argument that Science needs to look at the possibility of some sort of God (oh, my mistake, intelligent designer) being the root cause of the universe beginning.
Scienctific method precludes the testability of such a Intelligent Designer. And in the event the Intelligent designer was testable, an infinite regress would result whereby we would question where that designer came from.
It seems certain posters will not accept the fact that science cannot test for God. | |
|
| If complex things require a designer ...
Posted: 1/31/2006 12:10:24 PM |
energy can not be created or destroyed... this is fundamental science.
How do we know this for certain? Maybe we just haven't discovered a way that energy can be created or destroyed......... yet... | |
|
Home
login 
