The clock

[Runlikethewind]

However, take a look at the surface of the Moon. Notice the craters? The solar system's history is one of exceptional "messiness", with asteroids and comets on crazy orbits occasionally hitting planets with explosive force. The Earth too has been struck, with the result of mass extinctions.

If the solar system was designed, it was by God's inept grad assistant.

I recall learning about some experiments that tested the hypothesis that the early emergence of complex proteins and the resulting initial emergence of life on earth was the result of the explosive force of impact events. The experiment was able to produce complex proteins from amino acids (which other experiments have shown can be produced by electrical currents in a 'primordial soup') by subjecting amino acids to a massive impact from a hydrolic ram of some kind. In any case, the fact that the earth was pelted by meteors may have been a necessary catalyst in the emergence of life on earth. It's kind of like volcanoes, they blow up and make a mess and may have even been partially responsible for extinctions in the past yet without them there would be no atmosphere on the earth. There a positive and negative aspects to all natural forces, creative and destructive, creativity from destruction even.

My point being that if one wishes to look at the universe as a clock, as a design, one ought to recognize that it is not finished. The universe is several billion years old and it has several billion more years of life left in it barring some crazy disaster. To say that the universe is poorly designed is like looking at a building that is still under construction (with scaffolding and cranes and welding and piles of brick lying around...) and calling that a poor design. One needs to wait until construction is complete before making a judgment on the design.

The clock analogy seems to assume that when one looks upon the universe, the natural world, one sees a completed product. I don't see it that way. I believe that creation is an ongoing process. Its more like going through the desert and finding a bunch of cogs and springs lying around than finding a fully wound up and working clock.

 

[Quiddity]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimony:

"In science, parsimony is preference for the least complex explanation for an observation." which leads me to:

"If something is so complicated that you can't explain it in 10 seconds, then it's probably not worth knowing anyway." -Calvin

Parsimony would exclude your memory of eating chicken yesterday (assuming you did) as being irrational. But remember that this is the language of science. It's not enough to limit the realm of science, but also that of philosophy, theology, etc.

 

[logician]

Matter and energy have always existed, no need for a creator.

 

[athanasius]

Matter and energy have always existed, no need for a creator.

That is just your theory. It doesn't fit logically though. If every thing we know of in the "material" known universe has a prior cause, then it would be far more logical and reasonable to assume that Matter would also have to have a first cause then it would be to just assume that it didn't. It would also seem only reasonable to believe this first cause is spiritual, since it had to be outside of the material rhelm to intially create it (Matter).

It would also be logical then to conclude that this thing is infinite to be able to create somthing out of nothing. And it seems to me to be very reasonable to suggest intelligence because the material universe is vast and far more complex than any complex computer system which we have and expierience and know had intelligent creators(Like Bill Gates).

It would be far less scientific to just assume it did exist always when we know of nothing esle in the material universe that did. Its seems to me far more logical to believe in a Infinite, spiritual, Intelligent creator(s)(that may have used elvolution and natural selection as a secondary means to create) then to just say "well Matter always existed". That answer doesn't follow logically the rest of the lived experience we know as humans about all other material things and thier origin. That answer seems like a copout. I'm going to have to say that the Theist have a far more logical and resaonble answer to these issues than atheist do.

 

[fantome profane]

That is just your theory. It doesn't fit logically though. If every thing we know of in the "material" known universe has a prior cause, then it would be far more logical and reasonable to assume that Matter would also have to have a first cause then it would be to just assume that it didn't. It would also seem only reasonable to believe this first cause is spiritual, since it had to be outside of the material rhelm to intially create it (Matter).

It would also be logical then to conclude that this thing is infinite to be able to create somthing out of nothing. And it seems to me to be very reasonable to suggest intelligence because the material universe is vast and far more complex than any complex computer system which we have and expierience and know had intelligent creators(Like Bill Gates).

It would be far less scientific to just assume it did exist always when we know of nothing esle in the material universe that did. Its seems to me far more logical to believe in a Infinite, spiritual, Intelligent creator(s)(that may have used elvolution and natural selection as a secondary means to create) then to just say "well Matter always existed". That answer doesn't follow logically the rest of the lived experience we know as humans about all other material things and thier origin. That answer seems like a copout. I'm going to have to say that the Theist have a far more logical and resaonble answer to these issues than atheist do.

Neither assumption is any more or less scientific or reasonable than the other. Both are assumptions that are completely devoid of any supporting evidence.

This thread started with the argument from design and then quickly shifted to the first cause argument which was covered recently in another thread which you might find interesting.

 

[Yerda]

Can you name me any "Material" thing at all imn this life that caused or causes itself to exist out of nothing. I think you are dodging the question.

I am not dodging any question. The question of where everything came from is a very interesting one to me. I don't know the answer. I happen to believe that making up ideas like spiritual realms or non-empirical planes is simply intellectual dishonesty.

Theist have a reasonable answer to that as I have shown! Athiest fall flat on thier face.

Not all theists believe God created the universe. Atheists (and most educated theists that I know), so far as they are interested, are usually keen to look for the answer as opposed to assuming one.

Matter has to have a first cause by logical conclusion!

You'll have the proofs ready then?

It has to be outside of the "material" universe to be able to begin to create the first thing inside of the material universe, so it had to be Spiritual.

This kind of reasoning is called circulus in demonstrando.

It would seem reasonable that this thing would be intelligent becuase the material universe is vast and complex, far more vast than the best computer, which we know had a creator(Bill Gates).

I'm glad you offer your opinion freely. That's what makes for good discussions. I disagree however. It is not unreasonable that complexity can arise without intelligence. The most complex object that I know of is the human brain, there is plenty of evidence that it was the product of unintelligent processes.

So its only logical and reasonable given our understadning of how the material universe works to assume that a infinite, Spiritual, intelligent being(Or beings) created the univers (using secondary causes such as evolution).

There is no logical reason to assume an infinite, Spiritual, intelligent being(Or beings) created the univers[e].

...what do you call a inifnite, intelligent, Spiritual being who creates the univese(even by evolution), we call it God.

Unnecessary.

Cheers.

 

[eudaimonia]

That is just your theory. It doesn't fit logically though. If every thing we know of in the "material" known universe has a prior cause

Nothing science has discovered has a prior cause, if having a prior cause means a cause of the existence of that thing, and not simply its current form.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Matter and energy have always existed, no need for a creator.

And your proof of that is?

 

[camanintx]

If you walk in the dessert, and suddenly find a ticking clock, showing the time and date correctly.

Would you beleive that

1) that a company had created it, a consumer bought it, and somehow it was left, lost, thrown away or something, in the dessert

or

2) that it appeared in the dessert after 1000's of years of different processes that was carried on in the dessert, with combination of lightening, pressure, heat and so on?

I guess most people would say 1 - that it was created.

So why do the same people say that the solar system was not created? But just happened to be?

What is the difference between these two options? The materials the clock are made from were formed over 1000's of years by natural processes. The clockmaker who put the materials together evolved over 1000's of years by natural processes. If you're trying to disprove evolution, you need to come up with a better analogy.

 

[Mister_T]

If you're trying to disprove evolution, you need to come up with a better analogy.

The OP is not meant to disprove evolution. It is rather trying to give a case for intelligent design, which really doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

BTW, welcome to the forums!

 

[Shortandy]

Matter and energy have always existed, no need for a creator.

Your assertion here is correct in that the first law of thermodynamics states that In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant. This has proven to be a true scientific principle to say the least. However, if this statment is true then evolution is false or it needs to be thought out again. Evolution asserts that something came from nothing. That can't be true if the first law of thermodynamics is true. So which is wrong; thermodynamics or evolution?

 

[Shortandy]

Where are the transitional forms? We shouldn't be looking for one missing link but thousands upon thousands of common ancestors.

 

[Runlikethewind]

Where are the transitional forms? We shouldn't be looking for one missing link but thousands upon thousands of common ancestors.

If the theory of punctuated equilibrium is true then we are bound not to find many transitional forms at all. In any case the environmental conditions required to fossilize something are so specific that well over 99% of all living things will never become a fossil. Combined with the fact that most sedimentary beds are buried under thousands of feet of rock the fossil record is bound to remain incomplete and full of holes.

 

[Jaymes]

Evolution asserts that something came from nothing.

The hell version of evolution are you going by? :areyoucra The one I studied the past two quarters had nothing to do with something popping out of nothing.

Even the idea that life came from nonliving biological compounds isn't "something coming out of nothing"... those compounds were already there.

 

[UnTheist]

Your assertion here is correct in that the first law of thermodynamics states that In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant. This has proven to be a true scientific principle to say the least. However, if this statment is true then evolution is false or it needs to be thought out again.

Um, no, it wouldn't. Plus, you are talking about the SECOND law of thermodynamics, which states that Entropy increases over time. But if you look at the world around you, order comes from disorder all the time: Snowflakes, clouds, tornadoes, river beds, lightning, ect ect.

Evolution asserts that something came from nothing.

Evolution makes no such claim. That's Abiogenesis.

That can't be true if the first law of thermodynamics is true. So which is wrong; thermodynamics or evolution?

Neither.

 

[camanintx]

Your assertion here is correct in that the first law of thermodynamics states that In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant. This has proven to be a true scientific principle to say the least. However, if this statment is true then evolution is false or it needs to be thought out again. Evolution asserts that something came from nothing. That can't be true if the first law of thermodynamics is true. So which is wrong; thermodynamics or evolution?

Evolution asserts no such thing. You are confusing evolution with either the big bang hypotheses on the origin of the universe or the abiogenesis hypotheses on the origin of life. Neither of these assert that something came from nothing so there is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

 

[athanasius]

Nothing science has discovered has a prior cause, if having a prior cause means a cause of the existence of that thing, and not simply its current form.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Do you have a prior cause then? Or did science discover you caused yourself to be out of nothing? Wasn't your parents responsible for your being? Didn't the universe have a prior cause according to scientist? Don't we call this prior cause the Big bang theory?

 

[painted wolf]

No the "Big Bang" is not a cause, its an effect.

Do water molicules need a creator each time they form?

wa:do

 

[athanasius]

No the "Big Bang" is not a cause, its an effect.

Do water molicules need a creator each time they form?

wa:do

Where then did the water molicules(Matter) come from to begin with?

 

[Prometheus]

Your assertion here is correct in that the first law of thermodynamics states that In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant. This has proven to be a true scientific principle to say the least. However, if this statment is true then evolution is false or it needs to be thought out again. Evolution asserts that something came from nothing. That can't be true if the first law of thermodynamics is true. So which is wrong; thermodynamics or evolution?

Not only does Evolution not say anything about the origin of life or the cosmos, but it also does follow the laws of thermodynamics. The increasing energy occurring in evolution is balanced by the decreasing energy of the sun.