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