Designed by Chance?

I've sort of pieced together for myself that the watchmaker theory is only half the battle. Some might say Creator winds up the watch and lets it go, and that so aptly breeds Protest Atheism in the human condition and elsewise. The universe is definitely well crafted and it stands to reason in my mind that it was indeed crafted and not just due to random events that just happened to happen in perfect order...

The other half of the battle brings in the big guns. One needs to pull the Creator closer and understand Him in terms of the creation and beyond the creation, to make the watchmaker a necessary part in the continual functioning of the watch. He's in there at all times interacting and helping it along. I won't go too deep, cuz that spans a giant area worthy of a lifetime of study.

To me, chance is rediculous. The deeper science delves into rational understanding of the universe, the more it seems necessary that a mind organized these rules. Chance implies haphazardness and chaos. The fine-tunedness of the universe finds chance to be so nearly impossible as to BE impossible.

Question: Since we know the "rules" upon which our universe operates, can you imagine the rules under which a Creator's universe operates?

You and I live in a society of laws and regulations created by men, common sense most but created by men. But look what happens when we live outside those laws. The excitement of driving very fast, the beauty of owning things not available otherwise, the seductive power over others.

Simplistic, I know.

But look at the wonders we must be missing out on since we live in a universe of physical laws. When in the Bible it says "I am a jealous God", hey, it's true! The Creator doesn't want us to know the wonders of a universe with seemingly limitless experiences! At least not until we die physically. Then we're free to experience the universe in all it's glory...I believe.

I don't think it's necessary to equate "losing out on the fun" with those who choose to love God. It's a stereotype which fits a lot of people, but it's like saying all metalheads do drugs. Ain't true. I would say that some of the things you deem exciting turn out better in the long run if you avoid them faithfully... but I for one, believe in God, choose to follow Him and I still bang my head, drive fast, break shit, curse...
I find it easier to enjoy every aspect of life in communion with the Creator. It's not a matter of losing out at all. We all do what we feel is best for ourselves. Those that love God feel that following His example would be the best. And we fail, granted, because we're not perfect. We don't intend to be perfect, exactly, not as humans anyway. Not all of 'em are boring, though. And the limitations we hold on ourselves are mostly to avoid hurting others, because it's the goal to "love our neighbors as ourselves".

That's what I mean though...can you "imagine" what the universe outside our physical laws must be like?

It's our nature as humans that we seek what we cannot normally feel or experience. And the laws of men restrict some of us from doing so.

Hey, it's an ethereal analogy at best.

Actually, I hate thinking this way...because it's mostly unproductive.

Something like a Bugs Bunny cartoon, I'd expect.

Why do so many people assume the universe is a "design" of some sort? What actual EVIDENCE points to any greater meaning, other than wishful thinking? And whatever happened to Cosmic Ray, a chewer who used to have some insightful thoughts on these and other matters?

What evidence points otherwise?

So you're saying:

The universe exists, therefore there is a creator?

Cause and effect seems to imply so. There must be an uncaused cause. That would be the creator. Was the Big Bang caused by nothing?

That's a slippery slope. By the same definition, the creator would also have to have a creator, ad infinitum. That's kinda my whole point. Just because we don't understand HOW the universe exists, why must we use our superstitions to supply us with an unknowable answer? Why make the leap to suppose there is a god? How are our "modern" ideas of godhood any different than primitives who worshipped the sun?

Mind you, I'm not saying we shouldn't search for "meaning", I'm just saying we shouldn't apply meaning to a set of circumstances simply because we currently have no other way of explaining them.

They aren't. What pulled the trigger on the big bang? We can't tell. We just can't tell. Our rules don't work until a given time after the big bang. Cause and effect are pretty clearly linked on our scale, but more dubious on the quantum level as well.

Anything previous to that is pure guesswork. Some of it's educated guesswork, but that involves the cosmological. The theological stuff is just made up. God may have written Maxwell's Equations, but what's that got to do with an Invisible Superfriend in the sky?

What evidence would you accept?

Hence we desperately resort to science?

The ONLY way--IMHO--you can approach the Creation vs The Big Bang debate is becoming familiar with Platos' Theory of Forms.

In Plato's theory of Forms he wrote that it is important to make a distinction between the acquisition of knowledge and the acquisition of truth, because knowledge is not necessarily the truth.

The fundamental prerequisite to understanding is to have knowledge of the forms, therefore knowing the truth. The forms do not exist in the sensible world, they can only be found in the super-sensible world. The lower forms reflect--or aspire--to be like the higher forms. As you might know, Platos' theory of the forms is partly logical and partly metaphysical.

"In “The Phaedo,” Plato explains his theory of forms and ideas concerning the mortality of the soul. We find that the soul and body are separate and that the soul lives after death and had lived before. This leads us to the idea of forms and how we acquire the knowledge of these before birth. The only time the soul is separate from the body is in death. Since the soul can only obtain knowledge of forms when it is away from the body, we understand that after death is the only time when the soul can acquire this information. The intellect loses these ideas of forms when it is born unto a physical body. Although forgotten, the soul still holds this knowledge and what is known as learning is actually remembering, or recollecting, the knowledge we lose at birth.

These forms give us ideas of how we should relate objects to one another. For example, we know that a certain colour is red eventhough it’s not a “pure” red. When we see a red chair we recollect the form of red from our past knowledge of the soul. These forms are abstract ideas that hold true throughout each soul and are something that the physical body can never know. Since we only have an idea of these forms, we can never experience a true form with our senses. Our senses give us an understanding of the physical world at any given moment, but the physical world is constantly changing, so our senses can never let us experience the world as it truly “is.” Our senses can only let us experience how the world “was” at a particular moment. The soul acts as a “container,” for this knowledge and keeps it through each bodily life.

One argument against these ideas is that the soul would not be strong enough to survive the destruction of the body. This can not be true because the soul directly controls the motions of
the body; for the soul can will the body in any way it chooses and may oppose the body at any point. The attunement theory explains that the soul cannot be destroyed by death. It compares the
soul and the body to a string instrument, i.e. a lyre, and when the lyre is destroyed, so is the harmony, as with the body. The harmony of an instrument is a composite thing, which the soul is not. Composites cannot preexist their components. When the lyre is destroyed, so is the harmony; however, the soul cannot be destroyed for it is not a composite thing such as harmony, which means the soul is able to preexist its component (the body). Another argument is that the body may only be a garment for the soul. The garment will wear out eventually and the tailor that made this garment will also expire at some point. Suggesting that the body is a garment and the soul is a tailor, it may be the case that although the soul may exist after death, it may not exist infinitely, and eventually expire. Since the soul can oppose the body, the soul chooses to admit death. If the soul admits death, then the soul may perish. If the soul does not admit death, the soul is deathless, and if the soul is deathless then the soul is indestructible.
Our souls know the concept of the forms, and are the same throughout all souls. Since we cannot change the concept of these forms without creating confusion, all souls must have gotten this shared knowledge when the soul was separate from the body, i.e. death and before life. From this we understand that forms exist and as we learn we recollect these forms throughout our bodily life." --R.M. Willaims

No need. That falls under 'educated guesswork' at the moment, dontcha think?

Only the religiously idiotic would believe in the "seven days". Hell, even Judeo-Christian scholars don't accept the literality of those words in relation to the beginning of Things.

Seven days is a metaphor that works to garner order from chaos, to generate a calendar, and to maintain Tradition.

"Seven Days" refers to Genesis. On each one of six days God is supposed to have created a different group of things. From the Heavens to the Earth. And on the sixth day God created man of the dust of the ground and so forth. Then on the Seventh day God rested.

Hence the tradition of Sabbath, or a Day of Rest, to honor the Creator.

But nobody is able to convince those Literalists who cannot accept that a Universe takes millions of years to develop. It's a testament to monumantal stupidity and epic closed-mindedness.

However: The idea of intelligent design is still quite compelling when you consider the vast complexity of our Universe.

Will we come to know the Universal Truth once we die? Well that's the key question, isn't it?

Who/what created the universes that collided?

Not really. If you go back far enough there has to be an uncaused cause. As far as "mythologies" and "unknowable answers", Christianity provides answers. God is not unknowable, because He revealed Himself to us in the general revelation of the Universe and the specific revelation of the Bible. The difference between sun worshippers and Christians (and Jews and Muslims for that matter) is that we worship a personal, knowable God. A Being that desires relationship with His creation and has revealed Himself to us.

I agree with your last statement. We shouldn't apply meaning to something because we can't explain it. But some things are unexplainable. I don't think there is a God because I can't explain the universe, I know there is a God because He has revealed Himself to me through His creation and His Word.

Well, no offense, but I can't debate that with you, now can I ?

You could certainly try but you're right, it is difficult to argue about matters of faith. I was merely pointing out that I don't believe that the answers about the creation of the Universe are unknowable. I have it on pretty good authority. wink

But do you see the difference between animists (sun worshippers, native American religion, Hinduism, etc.) and "modern religions"?

Why?

I think because the alternative is loopy. wink Probably not the deep philosophical answer you were looking for huh?

There's this from Thomas Aquinas,"in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause…To take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause." Is that better?

Then there's this explanation I rather like from <a href="http://www.carm.org:" target="_blank">www.carm.org:</a>
"Definition: The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy decreases. In other words, the purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos, not order, and available energy necessary for work is lost in this process. Eventually, the universe will run down and all life and motion will cease. This is the natural tendency of all things. Batteries run down, machines break, buildings crumble, roads decay, living things die, etc. Left to the natural state, all things would eventually cease to function.

1.The universe is not infinitely old because it is not in a state of entropy.
If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state of entropy long ago.
But, we are not in a state of entropy, therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.
2.Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size.
It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand, therefore it is finite in size.
3.All events have causes.
There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.
If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state of entropy, which it is not.
If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.
4.Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.
A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself.
Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.
An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exit.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.
An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.
5.This uncaused cause is supernatural.
By supernatural I mean it is completely 'other' than the universe is not natural to it.
This would make the uncaused cause supernatural.
This uncaused cause is God."

Frankly, I see very little differences among any religions, other than particulars of faith and methodology. Worshippers baffle me. I mean no disrespect in that remark, it's just the way I am.

Originally posted by Jacob Singer:
<strong> No disrespect taken. I'm not sure I see your point though. I laid out one major difference. Animists worship impersonal forces personified by some aspect of nature. Mono-theists worship a personal creator God that has a desire to know and be known by it's creation. If there is such a being as that wouldn't it be wothy of worship?

I could understand not understanding worship if you thought either A)I am the penultimate being in all the universe, the pinnacle of existence. or B)I am on an even plain with all other animals though somewhat smarter. Is one of those the case for you?

I think I'm just another living organism out of billions that exist and have existed throughout time. Smellier than some, not as smelly as others.

I just want to add, this has been a pretty cool conversation so far. Thanks for not ganging up on the non-believers, and vice-versa.

Now, I think I'm way out of my league here, so don't laugh at me if I say something stupid or completely false, but...

The entropy explanation of why the universe, and therefore time, is finite, doesn't work if the universe is cyclic. In fact, it seems if all systems cease to work, other natural forces (namely gravity) would begin to do their work. With no energetic systems to oppose gravity, all molecules would attract each other, and the universe would slowly cave back into itself, and eventually reach a state like that before the big bang, from which the whole thing could go again.

Okay, I know nothing about physics, and I'm sure my little theory has been disproven a million different ways. But the basic concept of a cyclic universe could still work in some way, no? It need not have a beginning or end, just an infinitely repeating cycle.

Llama, you are not out of your depth at all. That possibility is just one example of the virtually limitless potential of existance. To me, that's why assigning a deity to it all cheapens it somehow.