Question for NotReady

[bunny]

I'd be interested in hearing a more detailed version of the side argument in the exodus thread. If I understood you correctly, your position began from the proposition that if something appears designed it is reasonable to believe it was designed. I have no argument with this.

However, it seems to me that the universe appears to be very ordered and that many components of it are very well suited to fulfilling certain functions. I dont see that this necessarily leads one to conclude it was designed or even that it appears designed - certainly evolution is an at least plausible counter-claim in my view.

You objected to Lestat's suggestion that something could be designed through evolution on the grounds that mind had to be involved in design. When I suggested that random forces could produce something which was then found to be useful and to fulfil an unintended function you presented a counter in the form of the words of hamlet inscribed on a cliff. I agree that, in that case, it would be much more likely to assume the act of an intelligent being. However, that doesnt address the point I was raising, namely whether purpose and function can be ascribed to something which has arisen aimlessly and with no forethought.

What do you think about that? Do you think it is impossible for this to be the case? To move to the DNA example you then mentioned, do you think the order, meaning and purpose we see encoded in DNA necessarily is the result of an intelligence designing it? Or do you think that although it is meaningful for order and purpose to develop unguided and for that purpose to be ascribed later by an intelligence, you just reject it as less likely than an intelligent creator? Or something else?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

However, that doesnt address the point I was raising, namely whether purpose and function can be ascribed to something which has arisen aimlessly and with no forethought.

What do you think about that? Do you think it is impossible for this to be the case?


[/ QUOTE ]

First, in the thread you mentioned I was making more of an empirical, a posteriori style argument a la Paley - I do think it's reasonable to believe appearance of design implies a designer - I'm not saying it proves it, but it does counter the allegations of irrationality - we aren't crazy to think Somebody did this. I don't think, from a strictly human, finite being viewpoint, I can say it's impossible for there to be no designer. But that leads to your question above.

This is more of a philosophical question. It boils down to two possibilities: Purpose vs. accident, design vs. chance, or what I prefer, personality vs impersonality.

You can actually have something called god without purpose, design for us - for instance, Aristotle's unmoved mover was an ultimate being of sorts, but he didn't create the universe, doesn't even know we exist, and certainly has no purpose for us - therefore for us it is the same as accident, chance, impersonality.

So the next thing to consider is the consequences of impersonality. I think it's impossible to escape relativism given impersonality as the absolute. No morality, no purpose, no meaning - and it all boils down to pragmatism or might makes right.

So you can ascribe purpose to the purely random but only in a relative sense - that face in the granite is beautiful to me, etc. But if finite beings (us) are the highest intelligence in all of reality then almost by definition the universe has no purpose or meaning, and nothing within the universe can have any final purpose.

I believe the purpose of everything derives from God and His plan. He created all things, everything obtains its meaning from Him and nothing is without purpose, nothing is outside His plan or unknown to His system. And nothing can be truly understood apart from Him, His plan, His system.

[bunny]

Thanks for expanding/clarifying/restating. This fits with where I thought you were coming from. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the purpose of everything derives from God and His plan. He created all things, everything obtains its meaning from Him and nothing is without purpose, nothing is outside His plan or unknown to His system. And nothing can be truly understood apart from Him, His plan, His system.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a nice belief. But it is wholly unnecessary and not supported by any rational evidence.

If a God exists, he could just as easily have decided to set it in motion and see whatever happens. Or he could set it in motion and see if life would develop and figure out its riddle. Or he could set it in motion and move on to another hobby. Or he could...

Seems rather presumptuous to assume you understand the intentions of supreme beings capable of creating universes. Do you think ants understand why you post on internet forums?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you think ants understand why you post on internet forums?


[/ QUOTE ]

They probably understand the definition of the word rational better than some.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems rather presumptuous to assume you understand the intentions of supreme beings capable of creating universes.

[/ QUOTE ]
This sums up my objection to all religions nicely. I think the idea behind this presumption is linked with the notion that humans are the pinnacle of creation. So, *of course* we would be able to understand and reduce God's plans to a few sentences here and there.

NR - If miracles aren't subject to logic then why should we be impressed with the construction "a designer is implied by design"? Seems kind of arrogant to assume our human intellect could fathom even the smallest part of a design that results in existence.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think the idea behind this presumption is linked with the notion that humans are the pinnacle of creation.


[/ QUOTE ]

creation. Heh.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea behind this presumption is linked with the notion that humans are the pinnacle of creation

[/ QUOTE ]
Its all ego. Center of the universe, important to some almighty god etc

Also the idea that there's some grand scheme with eternal existence of souls yet somehow its this infinitesimal slice of life we happen to be in now that matters so much and decides our eternal fate. Stunning egoism.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea behind this presumption is linked with the notion that humans are the pinnacle of creation

[/ QUOTE ]
Its all ego. Center of the universe, important to some almighty god etc

Also the idea that there's some grand scheme with eternal existence of souls yet somehow its this infinitesimal slice of life we happen to be in now that matters so much and decides our eternal fate. Stunning egoism.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think egotism is a necessary part of religion - I dont feel any more or less significant as a theist than I did as an atheist. I think it is a metaphysical question and the answer has consequences as to how we should live. It seems unfair to deem any religious belief egotistical on the grounds that it is the result of a psychological need to feel important (or whatever) as this seems to beg the question. I would argue there's a possibility I am right - if I in fact turn out to be wrong I think it's due to delusion, not egotism.

I dont think there's anything particularly special about our time on earth, nor anything particularly special about me. Not all religions are based on "what's in it for me?"

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea behind this presumption is linked with the notion that humans are the pinnacle of creation

[/ QUOTE ]
Its all ego. Center of the universe, important to some almighty god etc

Also the idea that there's some grand scheme with eternal existence of souls yet somehow its this infinitesimal slice of life we happen to be in now that matters so much and decides our eternal fate. Stunning egoism.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think egotism is a necessary part of religion - I dont feel any more or less significant as a theist than I did as an atheist. I think it is a metaphysical question and the answer has consequences as to how we should live. It seems unfair to deem any religious belief egotistical on the grounds that it is the result of a psychological need to feel important (or whatever) as this seems to beg the question. I would argue there's a possibility I am right - if I in fact turn out to be wrong I think it's due to delusion, not egotism.

I dont think there's anything particularly special about our time on earth, nor anything particularly special about me. Not all religions are based on "what's in it for me?"

[/ QUOTE ]
you are an exception, you're an atheist who happens to believe in god.

chez