it all happened by chance

[sword_of_truth]

Here's the problem...

If A implies B and you know B is true, does that imply A is true?

Put another way, if God's existence explains the existence of everything we see, does that imply that he exists?

Implicit in the argument from design is that there must be NO OTHER possible explanation for the universe. That is where we run into a problem. We all agree that IF there was a God, that would explain everything. God can explain anything, so this claim is unfalsifiable and unassailable. That does not in any way imply that it is necessarily true.

So, this is my challenge. I have never seen anyone fill in the gap in this argument. They just intuitively assume that it's true that there is no other way. Prove to me that there is no other way to explain the existence of the universe.

My intent is not to change anyone's mind about this, but merely to point out why I find it unconvincing and get people to appreciate the difficulties.

I am of the opinion that the argument from design may have a shot at actually being true, but that it has never been justified--even though I fully believe in the big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, and the scientific explanation of how stars, planets, and elements formed. We still have the fundamental constants of nature, which seem just right to support life, although the case for this may have been overstated. However, I think the idea of many universes and finding ourselves in the one which has the right constants, since otherwise we wouldn't be here, is a simpler and more plausible explanation than a God with all his powers.

There are two other problems with the argument for design. First, when applied to refute evolution, it emphasizes random mutations, while neglecting natural selection. No evolutionist ever said anything would evolve if ONLY random mutation was involved. That can, perhaps, cause a species to drift genetically, but not really evolve.

The other problem is that, even if we accept that God created the universe, we have not significantly progressed. You must assume what you are trying to prove. To be consistent, you must ask why God is there. Is God just there by chance?

I know the answer, of course. The answer is that something has to be uncaused or uncreated.

Okay.

Why does that something have to be a God?

Again, no reason is given. Just a preconceptions and intuition.

[Farid]

Salaam,

Hello there sword, how are you? To begin with, I would first like to say, who has told you that there is no other explanation? I have never heard this before.

Anyways, one sentence of yours caught my attention, let me quote it.

[Rat_bytes]

[sword_of_truth]

[Farid]

Salaam,

Rat_Byte Wrote:

[Ex-muslimah]

It's more likely to be an energy than a person then how did god manage to live?
_________________
The Borg is si-fi's Islam. The "Collective" is the Ummah and they assimilate the kaffir.

*http://www.karmanirvana.org.uk/* - For if you are in a forced marriage in the UK

[sword_of_truth]

[Rat_bytes]

[Farid]

Salaam,

Reading your posts, in it I find hints that we are not yet understanding each other. Its okay, room for more posts is not running out (hope not).

To begin with my post. I did encounter the sentence of yours, which I will quote and discuss. "I didn't say it wasn't possible. I just think it's implausible. This is the point of asking if God was just there by chance. " Please allow me to restate my point. Is it understood yet that eternity of explanations is very illogical and perhaps even impossible? If so, then we are paving our way for we are discussing a starting point. Is it implausible for this starting point to be the Creator and have such extraordinary powers? I answer with, what extraordinary powers are we talking about? Invisibility? Speed? Super strenght? If so, then I will be one of those who admit, I have no idea why we would be thinking about this. But lets do reason and see what this Creator most likely would have. It seems that it is not debatable to assume this Creator to be of high intelligence. So then, is that what is so implausible? High intelligence?

I will continue here as the last one is getting a bit long for a comfortable reading. Lets reason, if this starting point does not have any explanation, then that seems very illogical, and sense something illogical like that is actually logical because it is a starting point, then more illogicals to follow should not seem implausible such as the extraordinary powers you are perhaps referring to. Therefore, we should not see that as implausible.


Is God a unsubstantiated idea? That is what you said in your post. To quote you:"The bigger problem is that God is an unsubstantiated idea, and therefore could only be true by a lucky guess. "

To discuss this, I feel obliged to ask you what would make God a substantiated idea? Sometimes we have to use logic to predict existence of energy, atoms or any other such things even if we have not seen it. For example gravity. How unsubstantiated is the idea of God according to you? You claim that it could only be true by a lucky guess. If no harm on your part, I will change this a bit so as to make it a bit more accurate. I believe that "lucky" guess should be "educated" guess because there is in fact evidence for a Creator. Now if you want to talk about this Creator, then that is different.

Now to discuss your talk on evolution and nature's complexity.
"There is an explanation for that intelligence. Yes, there is intelligence in nature. It's a record of the past. Millions of years of evolution. Of course, when all that information has built up and been recorded for millions of years, we shouldn't be too surprised at the complexity of the behavior produced. " It seems that my point has not been made. You see, this does not explain much. Easily put, how did this complexity come about, well through evolution. How did these cells knew what to do? Are they that intelligent? How did they knew to design the body so as to pump blood with nutrients everywhere? How did they knew that the body needs nutrients? How did they knew to use oxygen to live? How did they knew to manipulate electricty and calcium to help us move? How did they come about with the idea of a muscle, bone, eyes, heart and others? How did they knew to manipulate light in a way so we can see images? So many questions sword, I do hope you get my point in this.

To give you another example. This example should show you how at how basic properties of something can be so hard to answer but be implicative of a Creator or intelligence. For example, lets look at the properties of everything, why do they have the properties they have? For example, something is orange, another green, etc. Why when hydrogen is pressurised it turns into helium? Who/what told it to do that? Why does it turn into helium? I do hope you understand how I look at this. This is what I meant when I said that it seems explanations will keep going forever and that seems illogical.

Programming computers is the subject which I will discuss now."In keeping with the computer example, there is a way of programming computers known as genetic algorithms, " I will have to say, exactly sword, exactly. Why so? Because you mentioned that there is a way of "programming". And that was my point, have you seen a computer program itself from the beginning and have no human interaction involved in it at all, zero, from beginning to the end? That would have been the perfect counter-example.

There is another sentence from you that shows the same point.
"What you could do is have the computer evolve a solution based on input specified by the user."Again, you have mentioned, "What 'you' could do ...." The mention of you in the sentence of yours shows my point, and the point was the human involvment in it.

I will have to ask you to please explain this sentence of yours as it did not seem to make sense.t is true that the computer still had to be programmed, even though it didn't have to be told exactly what to do. But there is where the analogy fails."How did my analogy fail when I was trying to show the human involvment in a computer?

Do nature show signs of pre-programmed? "It's not obvious that nature also has to be pre-programmed." Of course it is not that obvious, in the same sense that aliens start using computers when humans are extinct might think the same. They can say that this seems very programmed but it is hard to be sure. Nature is so much more complex that some might be justified in saying we should not even compare computers with it.

To give you an example of something that can be considered programmed is well, first of all the theory of evolution. Animals or plants evolve to circumstances, but how they evolve and why do they evolve that way might be considered programmed. There are too many to list in here, lets take again the hydrogen and helium. In the sun why does hydrogen become helium, why not iron, calcium or just explode and even if they do that we would have to ask why? And it makes sense to ask why? Just as it makes sense to ask why we are sitting and not floating? I assume you know the answer.

I do hope I have made my point clearly, but I do not think yet.

Thank you.

[/quote]

[Farid]

Salaam,

Sorry but I completely missed rat_bytes post.

To be of a priority, what? I think that my analogy and eternal explanations should be first explained. Please allow me to convey to you my analogy but I do hope this time to articulate.

A wheel, sitting motionless, what would move it? Another wheel lets say, but the other wheel is not moving until the another wheel moves the second wheel so it can move the first wheel. But wait, the third wheel also needs to be moved, so we go to fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and ad infinitum. But since infinity does not stop, the wheels will never move. This is how I apply it to the explanations, or to perhaps make it a little more clearer, the causes of everything, if everthing has a cause then we will go into infinity those causes will never be put into effect in the same the wheels wont be.

Rat_byte, I will assume in here and if you will, please confirm me. Are you generalizing about me and theists? How so? Lets take a look at your sentence."You appear to be suffering under the theistic double-standard syndrome, or "everything has to have a cause except god because I say so." " I do not think this way. I was talking about the break in the explanation cycle and I mentioned a Creator as a possibility, how you take it is out of my control to a certain degree.

You have raised my curiosity because of this sentence of yours. "I know WHY you are making such assumptions and attempting to pass them off as fact, but it doesn't make it any less irritating." Please do tell me the reason you think I make such assumptions if I have made any?

No more analogies? Ok, I agree with you as long as you understand my point. But if the analogies are not your cup of tea, then please explain why they are illogical or at least say they are.

There are few more assumptions of yours that I would like to quote,
"You assumed that the universe must have a cause, you assumed that progress cannot be made without a beginning, and you assumed that your god was the only thing the rules didn't apply to. " I, first of all, was not talking about the universe rat_byte, I was talking about the ultimate beginning. The beginning of simply everything. The break in the cycle of explanations. And my assumption that progress can not be made without a beginning? I have made clear my reason for such, I have hard time calling that an assumption. I have told you why a starting point, or break in the causes seems more logical. And lastly, I do not remember assuming that my God was the only exclusion from this rule. I have in the past, not long ago, maybe two minutes have already said that I was talking about God as a possibility.

Dear rat_byte, I see much stereotype in your post. Let me give you an example, "The corners you cut were when you said "god is outside of logic" and when you immediately jumped towards the concept of a conscious god instead of one of the other more rational possibilities for the universe's existence. "I am obliged to ask, are you reading my posts or somebody other than me, because as long as I remember I do not remember saying such a thing. And once more, I have not said that God is the only explanation, but combined with the supporting ahadith, it seems that possibility of a Creator is greater than other possibilities.

You will have to read my posts carefully, because I word it carefully. I take care to not make assumptions and so you will see I use alot of "seems" in my posts.

You are getting irritated by my analogies. You do not think that they prove anything. Let me quote you, "If analogies proved an argument then I probably would be able to prove that pink frogs grew wings and gave candy to children. "If you can use logic, then please show me a analogy of this. Why would my analogies bother you? I can not think of much but to say that they are perhaps illogical? If so, then please show me where I am being illogical. This is a honest attempt to get a answer from you, not to irritate you.

My concept of time. Lets discuss that. To begin with, I will quote you, "Also, your concept of time is flawed. You are looking at the past and the future as tangible things, when in actual fact neither really exist. " I see no relevancy of this to the point because this does not seem to prove anything. Just because past does not exist, does not mean it did not happen, it is exactly what it means, the past.

I am in a hurry now, please excuse me.

Thank you.

[sword_of_truth]

[Farid]

Salaam,

to cutback on the confusion, if there is any, I will not write a rebuttal as I see no need of it. I am mostly in agreement with you. All except about the starting point. You have said that it does not seem necessary."We can envision a line, representing time that goes on infinitely in two directions. There doesn't have to be a starting point, necessarily. But we can suppose there is. " Can you please explain how there cant be a starting point?

I believe we should discuss this first before going further. Once we are agreed, we can try to reason what or who this starting point can be.

Thank you.

[sword_of_truth]

[Farid]

Salaam,

It is comforting that we are on the same page about the laws of physics and where they came from. To quote you, "Yes, the basic laws of physics, such as the strong nuclear force may be somewhat mysterious."

And you criticize God as being the only known explanation. "There is a difference between no explanation we can imagine, and no other POSSIBLE explanation. This is how it is for almost every other theories we have. Of course, we can not say that there are no other explanations if we can not imagine it.

You say we do not know wether a Creator exists. "The truth is we just don't know. This is the point." I understand that we do not know for sure. But I am arguing that there are evidence.

And to talk of programming."This was just to illustrate the idea that over time a lot of information could be stored genetically, explaining a lot of the intelligence we see in life. " Yes, but my point, sword, was the involvment of humans in programming. If your counter-example did not solve that problem, then I believe that your example is not relevant.

The laws of physics. To begin with, I will quote you, "By the laws of physics, yes. But did there need to be a God to make those laws? Not clear at all. We just don't know why, and that's all there is to it. " My leaning towards a Creator is simply the intelligence seen in the universe. I see Creator as the most plausible solution.

And the starting point of the universe. "However, what I can say is that a universe with no starting point can be imagined. I attempted to exhibit such a universe. A line representing time that goes on infinitely in two directions. It has no beginning or end. "Sword, I believe you have understood me wrong. You are talking about time while I am talking about explanations or causes that go in infinity, not time. I am talking about the causes seeming very illogical to keep going forever that they wont be put into effect. You see, it seems that if these causes were to go infinitely backwards, and since infinity can not have an end, we can imagine the causes as being created as we visualize it and this going on forever, I frankly do not see how they can get a break and actually be put into effect.

Thank you.

[Rat_bytes]