Design and the intelligence hypothesis

Charles Knight writes:

quote:

---

Now my problem has always been this - If at one level, the designer does not need to be designed - why couldn't the universe just POOF itself in existance.

---

jar writes:

quote:

---

GOD had no origin. To speak of "Before GOD" has no more meaning that talking about before the Singularity.

---

and

quote:

---

But the Theistic Evolutionist is also a Creationist. We believe that GOD created the Universe and point to the majesty of the rules that seem to apply, the universality of those rules and the inevitable consequences of those rules as evidence of that which we call GOD.

---

Like Charles Knight (I think), I have no problem with anyone's personal faith when that faith ends where my liberty begins. But the point he makes above, IMHO, is the most trenchant in this thread.If God needs no beginning, why does the universe?Why should our observations of the universe promote a belief in God? The experience of majesty is in us, not in the universe; the argument from majesty is the mirror of the argument from incredulity: Quien es mas majestuoso? A school bus or a pulsar? Universality runs no farther than current theory and instrumentation; in fact, our theoriticians outrun it, positing sister universes where all the constants of our anthropic universe may well vary.To speak of "before the singularity" makes a great deal more sense than to speak of "before God"; cosmology considers cyclic Bang and Crunch, colliding sister universes, ultimate heat death, etc., and proposes observational tests of each possibility.To speak of and consider "before the singularity" may lead to knowledge, not only making sense theoretically but promising to be productive. To conclude from our subjective experience of majesty that there must be a God is in principle no different from the conclusion of the Cargo Cult islanders, who could only explain these material wonders washing up on their shores via a deity.IDers are, indeed, hoist by their own petard via regression: one cannot validly cite one's notion that apparent complex design evidences a creator without raising the question of that creator's origin; responding to that question with a reason-proof definition creates a nullity, not a refutation (I am not ascribing that maneuver to jar)I am endlessly fascinated and curious about another's experience of majesty, and quite willing to listen at length to it, as long as the life consequences remain theirs, not mine. But when my ID interlocutor tells me, "I don't have to reply to questions about First Cause, for I have defined them away," the discussion cannot proceed.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 07-25-2005 09:13 PM

I can't make heads or tails out of your logic here.Are you saying that the Big Bang theory caused a flip-flop among steady state theorists who previously had no difficulty with "beginninglessness" but do now? How do you know?How do you know the positions regarding God and/or beginnings of any of those people, then or now?Isn't this your logic?:1. Some scientists, some of whom may have been unbelievers, proposed the universe had no beginning. Their theory failed to gain and hold acceptance in the scientific community.2. A theory was proposed by scientists, some of whom may have been unbelievers, that there had been (at least) one beginning to the universe, and this theory became generally accepted among many believers and unbelievers alike.3. Fifty years later, some unbelieving, scientifically minded person posting into this thread finds the notion of a God with no beginning illogical.Therefore, unbelievers have no intellectual integrity.Steady state theory attempted to reconcile the General Theory of Relativity with observation. It failed in the face of new observations, and Big Bang theory was widely adopted because it better fit the new observations.What could be more intellectually honest than that?How intellectually honest is it to lump together scientists, then and now, whose positions on the question of God and beginnings you simply do not know, so that you can assault the integrity of "God-scoffers"?

quote:

---

If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, that's too bad.

---

Oh, I see it alright.