Questions 6-7

Question: In reading about Deism, I discovered that many Deists seem to use Intelligent Design as proof of God’s existence. I reject this as I see evidence of spontaneous complexity in nature. I instead accept the logical validity of Leibniz’s version cosmological argument. What is your rational basis for believing in God? –sidfaiwu

Question: What is your opinion on Evolution and the Big Bang? How does god fit into this view of the world? –Alcari

Answer: This one took me a while, with such a well-researched question, an answer befitting it is required.  I will start by stating that I as well reject Intelligent Design.  The very basis of ID is aesthetics, given that its original claim was that life appeared too complex to have arisen by chance.  The problem with this is that there are many things that humans have built that are less complex than things created by a proven geological process (the coffee cup and geode on my desk are driving that home for me).  At what point does a thing become so complex that it must have been designed and have no chance of natural occurrence.  In this same vein, I must reject the Discovery Institute’s take on Intelligent Design as did not fix any of the inherent problems in the initial statement and in fact creates more by attempting to narrow the scope of the designer without addressing the complexity question.

I find that my belief comes part from the Cosmological argument and part from the theory of the perfect universe.  The Cosmological argument to summarize for those that are unfamiliar with it, states that every effect has a cause, that no effect can cause its self to happen, and that no causal chain can be of infinite length (resulting in the infinite loop of what caused that cause), thus there must be a first cause.  Applied to the universe its states that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, the universe began, thus it must have a cause.  Given the prevailing theory of the big bang, I am inclined to stand by the logic that the universe did in fact require a cause.  However, there is also the theory that the universe may not have a defined beginning, as human logic understands it.  With this, the idea of the perfect universe bolsters my belief.  Regardless of the first cause argument, the fact remains that the laws of this universe are perfect.  They are uniform through out, and though we may not understand them all yet, they keep the universe running perfectly without observed glitch.  Whatever was able to write laws capable of running the universe must have been beyond the scope of the universe and beyond the capacity required to observe them.  However, do not take this to mean that I believe the universe was created specifically for humans.  Human arrogance twists these arguments to say that man is special because of them.  I’ll leave this with two quotes that sum up my feelings on that so that we can get to the discussion.

“The Universe may
Be as big as they say,
But if it didn’t exist
It wouldn’t be missed.” –author slipping my mind right now

“A man said to the universe: "Sir, I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "That fact has not created in me a sense of obligation.” –Stephen Crane

Brian Humanistic Jones

3 Responses to “Questions 6-7”

  1. sidfaiwu says:

    Hello again Brian,

    The version of the cosmological argument you put forth is the Kalam version. The one that Leibniz put forth is the modal version that avoids the problem of the possibility of an infinite past. J and I have recently had a very interesting conversation on this topic that can starts here, for those who are interested. Just look for the comments authored by J and sidfaiwu.

    Also, the theory of the perfect universe is interesting. I actually think that it a version of the intelligent design theory in disguise. It’s a version that I find much more persuasive than the modern, God created all living species as-is, version. Basically it claims that the consistency and perfection of all natural laws are too unlikely and complicated to be caused by chance. Thus a powerful intelligence must have designed the natural laws. I’d be interested in your thoughts on this.

  2. Naery says:

    Not to repeat myself to much, but isn’t that perfect universe alarmingly like the fallacies like: ‘Humans need water and oxygen, and the earth has them, of all the planets there are, what chance we are on this one, something is behind it!’

    If the laws were less ‘perfect’, we wouldn’t exist, no? If they were different, but functionnal, with sentient beings, wouldn’t they say: ‘Those laws are perfect, proofs is those laws make it possible for us to exist!’…?

  3. “The Universe may Be as big as they say, But if it didn’t exist It wouldn’t be missed.”

    Take note of that quotation. I don’t think that its not possible for other sets of laws to exist that would result in beings nothing like us. I’m saying that the laws themselves are woven together to create a perfectly functioning universe. Even if a universe was created that expanded and collapsed too fast for sentient life to form, I would still consider it perfect if it functioned that way throughout.

    It has nothing to do with us and our formation, that’s the normal revalistic way of twisting science. “We are here and statistically its not likely that carbon based life would have evolved like we have and be granted with the kind of environment that we have, therefor mankind is special.” I don’t feel that way. Even on earth we have organisms that eat sulfur and live at pressures enough to crush my car into the size of a tin can, and even other that get all their energy from Uranium radiation deep in mines. To say that we are the only posible out come is pure sapient arrogance.

Leave a Reply