Argument from Design.

By saying a designer can only create one or another is limiting the designer. Why can't the designer make an ordered universe but still have some level of ordered ramdomness?

You are also assuming an intelligent designer would design and create a perfect human. This cannot be the case because we are meant to die and be tested. These things would require imperfection to work.

Syke:

There is NO lack of intelligent design in the world..
anymore than you cooking an apple pie and it comes out of the oven with burnt edges denote that the ingredients self-assembled put themselves together harmoniously and turned on the oven and baked themselves.

If the Apple Pie came out with a burnt edges I wouldn't say it put itself together. I would say I did something wrong. Did God do something wrong? Your analogy is odd.

Ferown:

By saying a designer can only create one or another is limiting the designer. Why can't the designer make an ordered universe but still have some level of ordered ramdomness?

You are also assuming an intelligent designer would design and create a perfect human. This cannot be the case because we are meant to die and be tested. These things would require imperfection to work.

I agree whole heatedly. The extension of my argument is that you can't really tell if there is intelligent design. I mean you can take some things and infer that there might be a designer but at the same time there are counter-examples so it is not reasonable to pick an intelligent designer.

Wahabi:

It, however, is clear that if there was no design in the universe, the scientific study of natural laws would not be possible. Natural laws are accepted as facts because of the ability to repeat them ad infinitum in the lab. Also because they have impressive predictive power. The wretched wants us to believe that this is disorder, a design-less reality ... such levels of predictability are not possible in a universe without a design and one that works on creating local order from disorder, while the net disorder of the universe continues to increase (2nd law of thermodynamics), without the sense of differentiating between the two.

I don't see why not having a designer would imply that we wouldn't be able to have natural laws or scientific laws. Natural laws are descriptive, that is, they are statements of what is the case. For example, the universe is composed of such and such rules that if you take water and heat it up it will boil at x degrees. Why would this be impossible if there was no designer? If you take a universe where there is just one giant rock and that rock was all that there was, the natural laws of that rock would be something like "all matter is made of one substance". Probably an uncreative example but my point is natural laws only describe the state of affairs in universe x which does not prerequisite a designer.


I THINK as an addition to what I have said, what would Muslims here accept as evidence that the universe does not have a designer OR what would it take to even persuade you to an agnostic position?

format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx

Ferown:


I agree whole heatedly. The extension of my argument is that you can't really tell if there is intelligent design. I mean you can take some things and infer that there might be a designer but at the same time there are counter-examples so it is not reasonable to pick an intelligent designer.

I THINK as an addition to what I have said, what would Muslims here accept as evidence that the universe does not have a designer OR what would it take to even persuade you to an agnostic position?

Thats why it depends on guidance and faith. Some people would say that even the fact that anything exists is proof of creation whereas no amount of evidence would persuade others.

Could you give examples of types of hypothetical evidence? The only thing humans can do is look at the universe and describe it. I can't imagine what kind of thing would prove there is no designer.

Muslims have usually not only already weighed up each side thoroughly and decided that yes there is a designer, but also gone a step further and decided Islam is the correct path.

I have quoted you directly from the Quran that being tried is part of man's lot in life.. many people in fact glaze their pies with eggs to have that browning effect, so what you deem imperfection or a mistake is all part of the desi

This is a tautology.

Wahabi:

if there was no creator, there would be no laws which had predictive power. Universe would be a jumbled mess of random processes. Random things cannot be made sense of. While, we can make sense of many things in the universe. The very ability to make sense comes from within a universe that you want us to believe has no inherent "design?"

I do not see the justification for 'if there was no creator there would be no laws which had predictive power'. Your reasoning is that random things cannot lead to a universe with natural laws...your conclusion does not actually follow. I think there are a couple of things to keep in mind: 1) the existence of a thing implies there is someway to make sense of it; 2) In what sense do you call the universe random? The laws of physics may have been born randomly but once they kicked in the effects were not random 3) the reason why laws have predictive power is because they are describing a set of affairs so we can just look around and find what we have described based on observation. So natural laws take the form of 'L entails P' where L is a law and P is a prediction but the entire statement 'L entails P' is descriptive. If something exists it will necessarily have natural laws that take the form I have outlined without any need for a creator.

Thats why it depends on guidance and faith. Some people would say that even the fact that anything exists is proof of creation whereas no amount of evidence would persuade others.

Could you give examples of types of hypothetical evidence? The only thing humans can do is look at the universe and describe it. I can't imagine what kind of thing would prove there is no designer.

Muslims have usually not only already weighed up each side thoroughly and decided that yes there is a designer, but also gone a step further and decided Islam is the correct path.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. But it seems you agree with me that arguing from design is really is just someone's speculation that the universe has a designer.

format_quote Originally Posted by Wa7abiScientist

1- Of course random things would mean they are not following any orderly laws.

2- "1) the existence of a thing implies there is someway to make sense of it" Of course if it was random, you could not make sense of it.

3- "2) In what sense do you call the universe random? The laws of physics may have been born randomly but once they kicked in the effects were not random". May have's wont get you anywhere. Universe would be random if it was not following any inherent laws. Universe would be random if nothing was predictable. How did such laws kick in randomly?

4- " 3) the reason why laws have predictive power is because they are describing a set of affairs so we can just look around and find what we have described based on observation." Why something that exists would necessarily have natural laws? It could just exist and then disappear. The whole universe could exist and then just disappear ....

1- okay

2-okay

3- Well to put it simply, once matter is created by the big bang, laws of nature have already started since the existence of matter would necessitate some sort of laws. Once things start existing so do the laws of nature.

4- If the universe poofed out of existence then it would not have any natural laws since it does not exist so I don't know what you are trying to say. Anyway, if something exists then it has some set of characteristics and properties, right? if a rock exists then it has characteristics of being hard and gray colour. So similarly, the universe, since it exists has a set of properties and characteristics and those properties and characteristics are what we call laws of nature; they are descriptive and that's why they are able to predict phenomenon...because laws of nature are propositions that describe how the universe works. There is no requirement for a creator because once the universe comes into existence a set of natural laws will follow.

Syke:

I think you are referring to the definition of tautology in rhetoric. I was speaking of tautology in the sense that it applies to a logical argument.

You said:

I have quoted you directly from the Quran that being tried is part of man's lot in life.. many people in fact glaze their pies with eggs to have that browning effect, so what you deem imperfection or a mistake is all part of the design!

I guess informally applied your argument is an example of begging the question fallacy (which is tautological). You say that all objects are designed in the universe therefore all objects you point out are designed. Tautology.

3- So you are accepting that before big bang, matter did not exist? "once matter is created by the big bang?" At least you do not accept the "infinitely old universe" childish theory, surprisingly some rejectors in Pakistan still believe that universe is infinitely old and will remain for infinity.

Well I am pretty sure the scientific consensus is that matter did not exist prior to the big bang. I've never heard of anyone believing in an infinite universe. I think even ancient Roman Philosophers had some notion of the universe starting and ending.

So how was this "matter" created? Can matter create itself?

I am not a scientist by any means. BUT luckily other people are:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=631

4- Sure, but those laws could have been something else? Why it should be the way it is? Could you make them better than how they are now? If you think so then why do you think so? As "Faysal" mentioned some where here that we could have "3 eyes and 3 limbs" and we would find it normal if we grew like that. Sure, if the laws were different and if we emerged in such a different universe, this present universe would seem odd. But what guarantee there is that we could have emerged in that different universe? Especially even other star systems closer to the Solar system do not even seem to have any signs of intelligent life ... of course we have not thoroughly examined them yet due to the vastness of distance ... at least our solar system's other planets cannot support life as we define life ... should not we expect a unique form of life adapted to those totally different kind of physical conditions in these planets?

I don't understand your objection. I agree with everything you say except the last part...why would we expect life to evolve on any of the planets around us? And what does that have to do with anything we've been discussing? If you can clarify that would be great.

Ferown:

Again, I agree with everything you say. Some people look at the universe and conclude that there must be a designer. While others look at the universe and conclude that this is what we would expect if there was no designer.

You didn't answer what could be done to prove the universe was not created. If you agree nothing can be shown to prove that fact then how can you say the argument the universe was not created is any stronger than the one that it is?

Like birth defects and things like that since IF life were left to its own natural process (copying and recopying DNA etc) we should expect errors to pop up once in a while and, lo and behold, kids are born with down-syndrome, a missing eye, faces stuck together with their supposed twin. etc.. It jus tseems like the process of procreation is riddled with instances of mistakes and errors that we should expect from an unguided process (well unguided as in no God is crafting each and every child). From that I think it is most reasonable to throw out the argument from design (I dont necessarily think the argument is all bad). I just think the argument should not be used anymore. I guess to summarize you can compare these 2 things: 1) Allah commands the angels to shape the body in the mothers womb after a certain amount of days (i hope i got this hadith right) or 2) kids are born because chromosomes are mixed together from the parents and sometimes the copying process screws up. 2 seems more probable.

_muslim_

What sort of person has a pure enough window of sight to asses whether the universe was designed? i hope you don't say a muslim

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye

Be that as it may as I have no desire to descend down to word play (which I can) you are yet to prove that having a 'variance' isn't part of a design. So you in fact have started with a fallacious presupposition which is in and of itself an informal fallacy. But again, do you want to waste your time on semantics or addressing the points?


all the best

Hmmm..do you know why logical fallacies are considered logically fallacies? It has nothing to do with semantics. Something is a logical fallacy if you have an error in the inferential leap from one premise to another, or an error from a premise(s) to the conclusion. The problem with what you're asking me is that I can't ever prove that something is not designed because you've already assumed that it is. If I point out some aspect of object x that I think implies no designer like the things I mentioned in my OP or in my response to Ferown, you will just say it was designed to be like that. In other words, the only thing you're doing is reiterating that you believe the conclusion All things are designed.

Your argument is essentially:

premise1) Since everything is designed,
conclusion:Therefore there is a designer.


SO

1)change your argument
2) agree that your argument is tautological but you dont care

Those are your options.

format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx

Like birth defects and things like that since IF life were left to its own natural process (copying and recopying DNA etc) we should expect errors to pop up once in a while and, lo and behold, kids are born with down-syndrome, a missing eye, faces stuck together with their supposed twin. etc.. It jus tseems like the process of procreation is riddled with instances of mistakes and errors that we should expect from an unguided process (well unguided as in no God is crafting each and every child). From that I think it is most reasonable to throw out the argument from design (I dont necessarily think the argument is all bad). I just think the argument should not be used anymore. I guess to summarize you can compare these 2 things: 1) Allah commands the angels to shape the body in the mothers womb after a certain amount of days (i hope i got this hadith right) or 2) kids are born because chromosomes are mixed together from the parents and sometimes the copying process screws up. 2 seems more probable.

We've already covered this. God did not create us perfect. We are meant to die. We are meant to be tested. Errors in replication, etc. are just that; a manifestation of that imperfection. Its not a case of one or the other.

I've also never heard that hadith before, please reference.