My thoughts on a Designer (now open for comments)

I think there is a designer. I have had many thoughts on this lately. I think it's reasonable to deduce a designer from looking at the universe, and would like to expound on this in the knowledge that I am willing to have my small summary refuted.Premisses;

​

There are instances in which to get the right conditions for events/life/tangeable diverse matter, "thought" seems to be a requirement.

​

In this universe, there atleast seems to be such instances.

​

Conclusion; This universe required "thought".I shall try and back up both premisses as best I can. First I will say that the first mover has to be motivated and then the problem is solved. (Sidelined).Thus to demand God having a "beginning", is to demand circles have "corners". The problem is solved via motivation, and I've been dieing to spit this out. It strikes me that the first cause, if self-sufficient, can "cause" or move to instigate, via motivation and so a mind solves the problem.Infact, a "mind" solves many problems, without people being so impolites as to say I am filling gaps with God.Infact, I shall not mention him for the rest of this post, and now I shall expound upon my premisses, by supporting the first premise:It seems that thought is a requirement, because that is self-evident in any worthy system.It would be premature to say that random chance alone, can create situations of order, if we see that there are particular requirements needed, in order to get a viable system. And also, the systems that are in place, suggest foreknowledge of requirements for that system. Hence my second premise; and here is an example;We see that if there was no time, then no events would occur, and if there were no friction, nothing would hold, and if there were no light and energy, there would be no life. Which begs the question; Is there and event and something that should hold together, and something that should need energy, precedingly? If these specific conditions are the case, then why are they precedingly the case when they ae EXACTLY what shall be required later on? Chance would supposedly allow these conditions, but the specifics are remarkable, and demand thought.For example; If you have the sun as a light for the day, and you need a light for the night, you can't have a "moon" satellite as a heat/energy source, as it would cook the inhabitants of the planet. Thus you make the moon to reflect the sun's light, and guess what? It just so happens that heat radiation requires a vacuum, and space just happens to be that vaccum.Do not these things require thought?I have a specific question;What is more likely; that chance provides these things, or thought? Which is the more likely scenario?(Although my argument is a proper one; it is not science, it is philosophy and can be placed in F+B I suppose)(edit by AdminNWR: modify thread title comment to open discussion)This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-18-2005 02:38 PMThis message has been edited by AdminNWR, 11-26-2005 09:21 AM

Hi NWR. Thanks for the reply; Please forgive me if I don't respond to any of your posts for possibly a day or two at pending my own internet access. Am I assuming this is the position you take aswell? You don't have to answer that, as I know you want your belief private.What I would say is that this position is correct(the latter half). I agree that evolutionary science shows that adaptation in organisms, to it's surroundings. I can't agree it isn't fine-tuned. I think it is made for events, and the arrangement of matter.However, logically I must posit that although life could exist in another form, in, for example (to counter my claim), a hot environment, with say, a hot moon , then this still doesn't negate the fact that the universe itself, overall, makes this possible.If you have Joe the alien living in a chaotic solar system, living in heated conditions etc. then Joe aswell as our species here on earth, still require the basics. Friction, time, water etc..So although we adapt, our surroundings must first enable life to exist, in order that we can exist, in order to adapt.This is the bulk of my argument. That infact, the universe has all the factors required, and is set up for such events, and I would still suggest this is the case, with evolution. I don't think evolution excludes what I am saying. I think the truth is that the universe must have the conditions required, and then life adapts.Obviously there is no instance in which a species could adapt to there being no time.I personally believe that adaptation is just a part of the design, as the universe is somewhat changeable. But time and friction and the fundamentals from the Big Bang, don't change. I agree that these hypothetical places could exist. Although I think my argument only deals with the facts; it only deals with this universe.I think, across the board, there is a fine-tuning.People usually think we as theists, only refer to the fine-tuned conditions around us. But infact the basic fundamental requirements of correct gravity, friction, time, all indicate a set up for diverse matter, and events regardless of our own existence.Basically I agree with the rest of your post. Which might not make for an interesting debate. So I'll add some spice;Many have posited that the water in the hole is infact a puddle, and the hole isn't dug for the water. But is that a true analogy if we are honest? If we truly look at all the universal factors, then is it not more adequately desribed as a pond, dug for the water?Truly take your time in answering, there's no rush. I for one thought for an hour or so about us being evolved for the conditions presented to us.P.S. If there is anything I missed you wanted me to adress, please mention it and I'll adress it.

Doesn't this assume the trait of chance, which is of this universe? The problem is that we could make thousands of hypothetical statements such as this and they'd all be possible. If there are lots of universe, there would have to be lots of chance, a trait of this universe, which I must assume you assume is "out there" aswell. Fair enough though; I know it's possible, I just think it's convenient for the random-reality scenario. But even scientists agree that life requires such things. This is why we look at other solar systems, and can say that there isn't life there. I think time = events, thus life. Yes. This plagues me sometimes. Why would there be anything anyway? Especially if it is all random. It might aswell simply "not be", and then from there, you add up things such as "time", and why such fundamentals are in place. Even if you don't include life, time is still allowing for events to transpire. So it doesn't take life evolving to time, for us to see that time allows this.I consider my moon-example, in specific, refuted, as life adapts to it's surroundings. A logical example is that an alien who is close to his sun, might say, "this sun is made perfect", but if we visited his planet, we would cook.However, could the alien still say, "this planet/sun is made perfect for us, and all our lifeforms"?You see, generally, there is still a range. For example; there will be a limit to how much heat and cold any life can take. So within the range that would allow life, becomes the "thought" I originally attributed to specific solar system instances. It's the range that allows the life, IMHO.I think we might be starting to agree to disagree. I'll let you decide if we should close this soon or whatever. Thanks. So is yours. You have posited many scenarios and possibilities, so you are not biased.

While this is possible, again, I think speculation is a way of not fully answering the conditions of this universe.When the theistic argument describes the conditions of this universe, this is met with arguments about conditions of other universes. It's a bit like catching a killer, and saying, "we have stab wounds in this case, but in other cases there might be gun shot wounds". It removes focus from the actual case in question.I think this universe just popping up through chance, means that you have to go along with all of them coming about none-theistically = chancefully.The fact is that reality = this universe/everything. Possibilities of other universes are, even if they are a fair speculation, useless, IMHO. As there is no evidence of other universes, so we can't measure this one by them, as that assumes they exist in the first place. In another universe, superman could protect the inhabitants of a similar "earth" like place.What does that enable us to say about this universe? The facts are that in this universe, life requires this "range". Range of heat-cold. Range of energy. There must be energy for life to exist. So we can conclude that life requires this range as far as we know. Is there any other kind? Depends what you mean by coarse. Low-grade, or unrefined? I still think the universe is very much a place that shows incredible thought. Don't forget that my actual syllogism doesn't mention a deity. It only mentions how "thought" is an impeccable explanation, IMHO.That's the problem with concentrating on the main I.D. arguments. They usually are "Goddidit" ones.Mine is more "a mind explains this incredibly neatly".If it was the Goddidit scenario, then I'd have not posed as to why thought creates this "possible range" of life.So..I'm infact cannot infer a deity. I can only infer a mind, and believe that mind to be a deity. My mind is complex. I do. Infact, all your answers are the correct in that you pose that there is only questions about such things. So infact I can't prove anything at all. And I agree with most of what you are saying, as you haven't dismissed anything.I would be content if you mentioned one possibility, the only possibility you seem to not mention or fight against; that a mind would be a good explanation for these conditions we see.Do you think that is a good possibility? Or would you say that none-theistic chance explains absolutely everything in a much better way?BTW. I am enjoying this discussion and these are just my thoughts. I am aware that scientifically, and even logically, I cannot prove this the case. But nobody actually seems to test or listen to a genuine boring argument these days. Only the controversial ones that come against science. Does anyone test these scenarios in reality apart from Brad? Do you know anyone who actually seeks, like Brad, to say;If a mind created this place, then we would expect to see this that and the other?this, scientifically, would be a valid way to proceed with a theory.Maybe it's because people cannot believe there isn't a religious motive involved, or that such things would lead to religious justification. But infact, such arguments would have to be abused, to be religiously justified. As is the case with my one. I entirely admitt that the "God" part must be believed according to my syllogism.(I could be back and thereby respond to your future-post in a few days...forgive my lack of attendence if this is the case)Don't be claiming winner by default, naughty baba. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-21-2005 09:31 AM

Hi NWR. Sorry about my time away, I am very busy.Reading your post I couldn't think of any refutations, and I suppose we're somewhat in agreement. I'll have to ask that you possibly open this up, as I think I won't be able to play any time soon.(Forgive me, but originally I didn't think I would be having a Great Debate. You can win by default I suppose, as I haven't came up with a refutation. I'll leave it to smarter guys.)

It seems that time is a product of matter.You always get time when there is matter.It's not so much a necessity, but infact it is part of matter.An analogy is required;When we run we pick up momentum. We will always get momentum,
when we run. It's not so much that we require the speed in order to run, but that
we are required to run in order to get speed. So then momentum represents time. Now
momentum, gives us the illusion that we need it in order to run. While that's true, the running infact creates it.You might think that it's very obvious that we need speed in order to run. But if you were on the moon, you could still run but you wouldn't have the same velocity. But always momentum comes with running. Whether you run slower or faster.So I think that time isn't necessarily a designed necessity, but infact a coincidental requirement which is born of matter. With that in mind, my previous points about time, are moot and irrelevant, and I withdraw them, NWR.I've always thought that time has a connection to movement. Movement of growth, movement of momentum.Perhaps time for me, is defined as the unhindered ability for matter to move.When I say 'move', I refer to everything's(matter's) movement. Because if we paused time, then we would never escape a moment. Matter couldn't grow/move.I know you couldn't think of a universe without time. But the point is, that you don't have to anyway, because time can come about via matter, parsimoniously, without God. Forgive my mistake. I know it's a long time since this thread, but the honest thing to do is to inform you.

And ofcourse, change is surely, as far as I know, impossible without time.I think I'm definitely going to see time as induced at the moment of movement. So unless heaven's a painting, I insiste there's time there!