For the philosophical minded huddlers

[TheGrunt]

Just a quick warning, I don't expect any sort of right answer here. And if you do choose to make an effort to help out, this may take some time. It's not an easy paper to write, at least not for a novice philosophical college student like myself. But for those philosophical minded Huddler's willing to stretch your mind a bit, my task is to prove that God exists using the Argument from Design. Also, when I say "God" I am not referring to the religious God that some people believe in, I am referring to a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, benevolent, and just, and more specifically, the creator of the Universe -- and anywhere in between (i.e. the "Designer" may be omniscient, but not perfectly good).

 

Another thing to remember is that this is an argumentation type of paper, so I'm using premises to argue for my claim, but also required to have the best objection I can think of to refute my main claim in the paper; and lastly, providing a response(s) to the objection. The problem, however, that I keep running into is that the best objection I could come up with I have been unable to respond to. So I keep proving that the Universe does not have a Designer, when I should be proving that the Universe does have a Designer (God exists).

 

Here's my outline so far:

 

The main claim of my paper is: The Universe has a Designer.

The premises I use to support the truth of my main claim are:

1. Only intelligent design can cause orderly systems

2. Either all order can be explained by appeal to something else or some orderly systems are intrinsic

3. Snowflakes are orderly, but intrinsic occurrences on Earth

4. So, some orderly systems are intrinsic

5. The Milky Way Galaxy is an orderly occurring thing in the Universe, just as a man-made house is an orderly occurring thing on Earth

6. Natural objects and man-made objects have similar properties, therefore both must be designed

 

The premise that needs the most support: The Milky Way Galaxy is orderly

7. The objection to my argument is: The Milky Way Galaxy is an intrinsically occurring property in the Universe.

 

This objection is a reason to reject this part of my argument: Until shown otherwise, the most reasonable assumption is to think that all observed qualities of a thing are natural to it. Suppose that something’s properties need no explanation from the outside, unless some reason is offered otherwise. If the qualities of a thing are natural to it, then there is no need to appeal to a Designer to explain them. The order is intrinsic to the thing.

 

My response to that objection is: Snowflakes are ordered things that belong in the Universe—occurring on Earth—only during specific circumstances, due to the natural physical processes of Earth’s complex environment. So, there is reasonable cause for the existence of such non-random, orderly things as a snowflake. Snowflakes are not a random occurrence on Earth, and the reason for which they exist can be explained. Along these lines, and following the Principal of Sufficient Reason, snowflakes on Earth and the Milky Way Galaxy have similar traits; such that, there is a cause or reason for which they exist. They both have reason for their existence, and yet, both intrinsically belong to a much larger complex thing. The eye intrinsically belongs to the human, for example, as a relatively small and complex object. The Milky Way Galaxy also intrinsically belongs to the Universe. And just like that of the human eye, the Galaxy is a relatively small and complex thing that may naturally belong to the Universe, but is an orderly occurring system in the Universe -- that is to say, the creation of a Galaxy is not random. For if the Milky Way Galaxy is a natural orderly occurrence in the Universe, why can’t the order of the Universe be an intrinsic property to itself?

 

At this point I've decided that I need to do two different things: either prove that premise (1) is true, and that only intelligent design (an intelligent designer) can cause orderly systems; or, I can start fresh and begin by criticizing my main claim rather than agreeing with it.

 

If this is too much, that's definitely fine with me. I find this stuff really interesting, but a lot of work. And I still don't have a full understanding of how the philosophical mind works, at least not yet. This is a rough draft, so there's a few inconsistencies, but I think you'll get the point. Any thoughts?

[godtomsatan]

So I keep proving that the Universe does not have a Designer, when I should be proving that the Universe does have a Designer (God exists).

 

So what does that tell you?

[isleseeya]

Wow , some interesting stuff grunt ...I will see if I can add something that helps after I look it over more carefully ...good luck in meantime

[isleseeya]

So what does that tell you?

 

Keep looking cause you will find it

[untateve]

you need to pm billay.

[TheGrunt]

So what does that tell you?

It tells me I'm not getting the right answer.

[TheGrunt]

Wow , some interesting stuff grunt ...I will see if I can add something that helps after I look it over more carefully ...good luck in meantime

Cool! The paper isn't due until Friday, so there is some time. I just thought it would be interesting to see what you guys thought about this stuff too. It's definitely a different way of thinking.

[Ursa Majoris]

So what does that tell you?

Exactly - now we will see how dogma fares against logic

[Clubfoothead]

I think the premise that needs the most work is the idea that only intelligent design can create orderly systems.

[Clubfoothead]

you need to pm billay.

 

that's a good call.

[AtomicCEO]

I think the premise that needs the most work is the idea that only intelligent design can create orderly systems.

 

I agree.

[TheGrunt]

I think the premise that needs the most work is the idea that only intelligent design can create orderly systems.

I agree. I need to come up with a way to prove that only intelligent design can create orderly systems.

 

One way to do this could be to prove that complexity cannot come from simplicity.

 

(1) Orderly systems are complex

(2) Complexity implies a Designer

(3) The Universe is an orderly system

---

So, the Universe has a Designer

 

Anyone see any issues with the above three premises? We might be on to something here...

[Clubfoothead]

I agree. I need to come up with a way to prove that only intelligent design can create orderly systems.

 

One way to do this could be to prove that complexity cannot come from simplicity.

 

(1) Orderly systems are complex

(2) Complexity implies a Designer

(3) The Universe is an orderly system

---

So, the Universe has a Designer

 

Anyone see any issues with the above three premises? We might be on to something here...

 

Gravity is your problem. That is technically what creates most orderly systems, at least among the heavenly bodies so I think gravity would have to be your designer.

[Chavez]

I think you should ask Thews.

[Brentastic]

PM sent.

[Chavez]

One way to do this could be to prove that complexity cannot come from simplicity.

 

(1) Orderly systems are complex

(2) Complexity implies a Designer

(3) The Universe is an orderly system

---

So, the Universe has a Designer

Complexity may IMPLY design, but you seem to have problems with complexity PROVING design.

 

The other side of the argument is that within what amounts to an infinite space over an infinite time period, almost all things are possible; complex systems randomly occurring are highly improbable - but improbable may become inevitable when we expand the timeframe to universal proportions.

[TheGrunt]

Gravity is your problem. That is technically what creates most orderly systems, at least among the heavenly bodies so I think gravity would have to be your designer.

Philosophically, however, gravity is only a main player of our current Universe. It is an intrinsic property that regulates our complex orderly Universe.

Is it not conceivable that there is a Universe without the same rules that regulate our own Universe? And if God is omnipotent, then is it conceivable that gravity is a means for the orderly design of our Universe?

 

So in one perspective you are right. Gravity is the 'cause' of the Milky Way Galaxy, thus, offering more evidence that a complex intrinsic property of our Universe is in fact part of an orderly system. We can also go back to the snowflake argument, and can once again prove my premise (4) is correct: some orderly systems are intrinsic.

[TheGrunt]

Complexity may IMPLY design, but you seem to have problems with complexity PROVING design.

 

The other side of the argument is that within what amounts to an infinite space over an infinite time period, almost all things are possible; complex systems randomly occurring are highly improbable - but improbable may become inevitable when we expand the timeframe to universal proportions.

Excellent objection. But are all things possible? Can you imagine a square circle? We humans are not omniscient, so that question is almost rhetorical.

 

However, you are right in that it is conceivable that highly complex systems can be produced by a series of very small randomly-generated steps. But that is also a counter-argument against your own claim of infinite space over an infinite time period. If something is infinite, then it cannot have a beginning or an end. Infinite goes both ways, which in this case we are only speaking on behalf of the Universe, which must have a finite time period in order to have a beginning in the first place. So if the Universe is infinite, then it cannot have a cause, or a beginning. Infinite implies that it always has existed. Thus, the Universe wouldn't need a Designer.

 

EDIT: If I'm wrong about infinite time and space versus finite, please correct me. This topic can get so in depth at times that I find myself questioning my own premises and reasoning. This is not an easy paper.

Edited October 18, 2007 by TheGrunt

[Ursa Majoris]

within what amounts to an infinite space over an infinite time period, almost all things are possible; complex systems randomly occurring are highly improbable - but improbable may become inevitable when we expand the timeframe to universal proportions.

You wanna pass that joint, Chavez?

[Clubfoothead]

Philosophically, however, gravity is only a main player of our current Universe. It is an intrinsic property that regulates our complex orderly Universe.

Is it not conceivable that there is a Universe without the same rules that regulate our own Universe? And if God is omnipotent, then is it conceivable that gravity is a means for the orderly design of our Universe?

 

So in one perspective you are right. Gravity is the 'cause' of the Milky Way Galaxy, thus, offering more evidence that a complex intrinsic property of our Universe is in fact part of an orderly system. We can also go back to the snowflake argument, and can once again prove my premise (4) is correct: some orderly systems are intrinsic.

 

Philosophically, gravity is the rule that regulates the universe. It is the force that creates stars, it is the force that causes orbits, it is the force that sends some comets and meteors off randomly. It is the force that eventually kills stars. Gravity is not a part of the orderly system it is the cause of the orderly system.

[Chavez]

But are all things possible? Can you imagine a square circle?

Ah, you are on the right path, young padawan. I see I SHOULD have used the phrase "logically possible" as opposed to merely "possible" - since a square and a circle are by definition not the same thing, a square circle is not LOGICALLY possible. (One of my philosophy profs, Marshall Missner, described logically possible as "if they can do it in a Looney Tune, it's logically possible")

However, you are right in that it is conceivable that highly complex systems can be produced by a series of very small randomly-generated steps. But that is also a counter-argument against your own claim of infinite space over an infinite time period. If something is infinite, then it cannot have a beginning or an end. Infinite goes both ways, which in this case we are only speaking on behalf of the Universe, which must have a finite time period in order to have a beginning in the first place. So if the Universe is infinite, then it cannot have a cause, or a beginning. Infinite implies that it always has existed. Thus, the Universe wouldn't need a Designer.

I wasn't saying the universe is infinite in regards to space or time - when I said "what amounts to" can be meant to read "as far as human conception goes", the universe is for all practical purposes infinite. Sure, scientists can put numbers to the age and size, but those numbers are on scales that are really pretty f'in massive.

 

Anyway, my fault for being less than clear.

[Chavez]

You wanna pass that joint, Chavez?

If I was tokin' up, my post would be more along the lines of "the universe is, uh, big...and uh, big things have lotsa space and lotsa stuff happens. So, y'know, you can look at it both ways really." *puff puff pass*

[TheGrunt]

Philosophically, gravity is the rule that regulates the universe. It is the force that creates stars, it is the force that causes orbits, it is the force that sends some comets and meteors off randomly. It is the force that eventually kills stars. Gravity is not a part of the orderly system it is the cause of the orderly system.

90-99% of our Universe consists of Dark Matter. Another theory is that these particles are what fill space and hold the galaxies of stars together. Gravity is the intrinsic property of what happens when these stars and galaxies are together, which is definitely a cause of the orderly system.

 

Gravity is very complex though. I just need to figure out how to prove that complexity implies a designer.

[Chavez]

complexity implies a designer.

Wouldn't The Designer be a fairly complex construct as well?

[Clubfoothead]

I just need to figure out how to prove that complexity implies a designer.

 

I think that makes people a problem. Most are not planned/designed and are complex systems.

 

Design, the verb, is defined as "to create, execute or construct accodring to plan." A plan for the universe would certainly imply a designer more than complex/orderly systems. So what proves there's a plan? I don't know but that could be an approach to look at. The "fact" that the universe is expanding might imply a plan, why else would it be expanding?

Edited October 18, 2007 by Clubfoothead