Existence of the universe as evidence of a creator?

[Tammuz]

I've been arguing with some theists about the existence of God. They claim that the existence of the universe, its stars, etc are evidence of God. If one says that the physical laws made gravitation and so on, they would ask who made the physical laws. They also use arguments like that I identify an object to be designed by a human with certainty, yet I don't identify living beings, who are are more complex that objects like clocks, phones etc, to be designed. How does one counter this line of reasoning? It is very hard to do that without appearing to be absurd.

[Alf]

I've been arguing with some theists about the existence of God. They claim that the existence of the universe, its stars, etc are evidence of God. If one says that the physical laws made gravitation and so on, they would ask who made the physical laws. They also use arguments like that I identify an object to be designed by a human with certainty, yet I don't identify living beings, who are are more complex that objects like clocks, phones etc, to be designed. How does one counter this line of reasoning? It is very hard to do that without appearing to be absurd.

Wow, lots of things here - where do I start.

First, the very existence of a universe cannot be evidence of a creator unless you can show that it is impossible that the universe could be here by any other reason. This requires omniscience - is your theist friend omniscient?

If he is not, we can safely rule out that argument.

Also, they confuse design and complexity. The truth is that most things that man has designed is hall marked as designed not due to its complexity but due to its simplicity and its goal directed design, the object has a clear purpose and is as such very simple.

As such complexity is the hallmark of something that is NOT designed.

Thus, the very complexity of living organisms is a sign that they were not designed. The robots etc that we design are simple and not complex, their complexity if any is only a product of us trying to mimic nature. The objects man usually creates are simple and not complex.

In short, I think it is your theist friend who is absurd. He claim to be omniscient and he claims that design produces complexity when in fact a good design is simple - a poor design is complex. If nature is designed it was designed by a madman who never heard of the "keep it simple stupid" principle - the so-called KISS principle.

Alf

[Witt]

I've been arguing with some theists about the existence of God. They claim that the existence of the universe, its stars, etc are evidence of God. If one says that the physical laws made gravitation and so on, they would ask who made the physical laws. They also use arguments like that I identify an object to be designed by a human with certainty, yet I don't identify living beings, who are are more complex that objects like clocks, phones etc, to be designed. How does one counter this line of reasoning? It is very hard to do that without appearing to be absurd.


When they ask you 'Who made the physical laws?' you might respond with 'Who made your God?'.

Neither theist nor non-theist can assert that the whole of reality, including gods if such there be, had a beginning.

[RAFH]

The two previous replies are good.

I'd ask them to support their assertions. And to couch them in the framework of a general theory based in observed phenomena and which is supported by specific hypotheses that explicitly infer specific predictive concepts. This should be accompanied by descriptions of proposed experiments and/or observations of reality that will test those predictions. They should follow that up with actual reports of such experiments and/or observations which include commentary on how they were set up, accomplished and the results. The final reports should include commentaries on what other explanations for the results and how they validate or invalidate the theory. Lastly they need to respond to any and all relevant questions, objections and/or comments from any source.

[RAFH]

I'd also note, 'physical laws' describe reality, they do not define or control it. The difference is enormous, for one, such 'physical laws' are creations of man, not god(s).

[Ruiner]

Determinism is a bitch for a supposed benevolent god. If all things are causally related, then our suffering here and for eternity (Christian point of view) was caused by god with foresight.

[sharahan]

I've been arguing with some theists about the existence of God. They claim that the existence of the universe, its stars, etc are evidence of God. If one says that the physical laws made gravitation and so on, they would ask who made the physical laws. They also use arguments like that I identify an object to be designed by a human with certainty, yet I don't identify living beings, who are are more complex that objects like clocks, phones etc, to be designed. How does one counter this line of reasoning? It is very hard to do that without appearing to be absurd.

Before the universe is created what was there in that place ?
If it is created by god; what advantage he make by giving us hardships like this for surviving ? Has any one opted this life ? It is true that we fear to die.
But if it is not taken birth; who cares ?
May everyone say God relate to Energy.
It doesn't make any difference in if one believe in God or not. The word God needs clear definition.

[sourdough]

I've been arguing with some theists about the existence of God. They claim that the existence of the universe, its stars, etc are evidence of God.
not if it always existed..
ask them who made god,..and HOW do they know this?

[ecco]

They claim that the existence of the universe, its stars, etc are evidence of God.
In that case so is cancer, HIV, malaria, etc. If their wonderful god made the beautiful universe, why did he fill it with so many thing that cause misery?

[Draconis]

The universe is the thing we are all trying to explaining, jumping to a conclusion "there must be a creator" isn't really credible without proof. Try pretending you don't know how a car works, or a computer... does "it works by magic" sound plausible? Without proving where this magic comes from or how magic works? No, I don't think so.

[kennethamy]

I've been arguing with some theists about the existence of God. They claim that the existence of the universe, its stars, etc are evidence of God. If one says that the physical laws made gravitation and so on, they would ask who made the physical laws. They also use arguments like that I identify an object to be designed by a human with certainty, yet I don't identify living beings, who are are more complex that objects like clocks, phones etc, to be designed. How does one counter this line of reasoning? It is very hard to do that without appearing to be absurd.

How could anything have made the universe if the universe is all there is?

[aa5874]

I've been arguing with some theists about the existence of God. They claim that the existence of the universe, its stars, etc are evidence of God. If one says that the physical laws made gravitation and so on, they would ask who made the physical laws. They also use arguments like that I identify an object to be designed by a human with certainty, yet I don't identify living beings, who are are more complex that objects like clocks, phones etc, to be designed. How does one counter this line of reasoning? It is very hard to do that without appearing to be absurd.

Just ask them how did they establish that the stars and the universe are evidence of their God? According to Genesis, humans were made on the sixth day after all other creation was completed, therefore humans had no idea what had happened before they were created. Was this creation story something that was dreamed up?

Physical laws are observable and can be tested, Gods have never been.

[sharahan]

Let me narrate a small story .
After creating the universe god was residing in earth. Every time when there is a heavy rain ;people go to his house and asked for help and he stopped rain. When a drought comes some one ask his help and he again make rains. Like wise every time his house was full of persons asking for rain and same time to stop rain. He was fed up. Thus god asked his staff to find out a solution . Some one told him to go to everest. He said they will come there.
Some one told him to go to moon. He told they will come there also. An elderly staff suggested him to go to a place where they will never look upon.
The place is humanbeings mind.God was happy with that idea and went inside to everyone's mind. From that time god is living inside our mind.

[CanoeMan]

Man what?

[sharahan]

The story tells only this . Every one can make assumptions of god as they wish.But it may not be true.Universe resemble to every thing in the world which include a god/creator. How can be a creator present when the universe is abscent.

[Iacchus]

I've been arguing with some theists about the existence of God. They claim that the existence of the universe, its stars, etc are evidence of God. If one says that the physical laws made gravitation and so on, they would ask who made the physical laws. They also use arguments like that I identify an object to be designed by a human with certainty, yet I don't identify living beings, who are are more complex that objects like clocks, phones etc, to be designed. How does one counter this line of reasoning? It is very hard to do that without appearing to be absurd.Obviously human beings are designed. It's just a matter of who or what you wish to attribute the "process" to. It's very telling, however, that human beings are much more complex than clocks and phones and whatnot.

[RAFH]

Obviously human beings are designed. It's just a matter of who or what you wish to attribute the "process" to. It's very telling, however, that human beings are much more complex than clocks and phones and whatnot.

Obviously?

Not at all. Not in the least.

At least not by anything with the least ability to design anything. Maybe an idiot, maybe a joker, maybe a sadist, maybe an incompetent moron, maybe a total twit, maybe a dolt with zero experience and no idea what its doing under the influence of very powerful hallucinogens, a dozen or so.

Even then, there's no reason to invoke such unless you just absolutely have to maintain a god fantasy or your entire world view will collapse.

Of course, you could develope a coherent theory to present such a concept, but of course, that would mean identifying observable phenomena that suggest the basic concept, phenomena that can be observed by others, then formulating your theory which rationally incorporates falsifiable hypotheses which infer predictions about reality that can be demonstrated in a reliable repeatable manner, either by designed experiment or observable phenomena. Then you need to put it all together with a report that incoporates the results of those experiments and/or observations along with commentary as to what else could account for those results. After whomever chooses to criticize your proposal, you then need to respond to each and every question, objection or comment and if you are unable to satisfy a reasonable majority of commentators with regard to the rational questions, objections and/or comments they have made, you will need to amend your theory to do so and the process can repeat. Only after you have satisfactorily gained acceptance consensus can you consider your work somewhat partially done.

Have at.

[Alf]

I'd also note, 'physical laws' describe reality, they do not define or control it. The difference is enormous, for one, such 'physical laws' are creations of man, not god(s).

Exactly. Man made laws are prescriptive. It is possible to break them which is why we have laws that prohibit it so that you get punished if you do.

Natural laws are descriptive. It is not that you get punished if you travel faster than light, it's simply that we have never observed anything that does and our observations indicates that nothing can do.

It is just by accident that both things are denoted as "laws". However, the difference between "If you cross on red light you get to pay a fine" and "it is impossible to travel faster than light" is enormous.

We do not punish a rock that fail to fall down and instead hangs in the air. It's just that we never observe it happens.

On the other hand we do occationally see people break the laws - and they get punishment as a result if caught.

His theist friend has failed to grasp this difference.

Alf

[Sarpedon]

Well, myth claims that Leprechauns make shoes. Therefore, the existence of shoes proves the existence of Leprechauns.

The problem with the argument is that it assumes that X is the cause of Y, which exists, without proving it.

[graymouser]

I've been arguing with some theists about the existence of God. They claim that the existence of the universe, its stars, etc are evidence of God. If one says that the physical laws made gravitation and so on, they would ask who made the physical laws. They also use arguments like that I identify an object to be designed by a human with certainty, yet I don't identify living beings, who are are more complex that objects like clocks, phones etc, to be designed. How does one counter this line of reasoning? It is very hard to do that without appearing to be absurd.
The obvious problem with this argument is that it is subject to a vicious circularity: if your answer to "who designed the universe?" is "God," then the question "who designed God?" is valid. When a theist says that "God wasn't designed," this is a contradiction, pure and simple.

Underneath it is a cosmological paradox. It's actually much worse than the theists imagine. Consider the ultimate fact of the universe -- whether it's simply the existence of the universe itself, or the physical laws of the universe, or one god, or a billion billion gods, or whatever. This ultimate fact, whatever it is, is uncaused and undesigned. There can be no reason for this ultimate fact. There cannot be a "first cause" underlying it, because then that cause would be the ultimate fact. Something exists rather than nothing -- for no reason at all, whatsoever. It's not that we can't understand it, or that it's beyond our reasoning, or our philosophy, or our science. Even if we were a race of supergeniuses with science so far advanced that it would seem like magic to us today, we could not explain why something exists rather than nothing, because an explanation itself is impossible. This is frustrating, but there is no way around it, for theists or atheists. Any explanation of why something exists rather than nothing would itself require an explanation itself. Appealing to the existence of a god changes nothing, and has no explanatory power.

[Cosmo]

I've been arguing with some theists about the existence of God. They claim that the existence of the universe, its stars, etc are evidence of God. If one says that the physical laws made gravitation and so on, they would ask who made the physical laws. They also use arguments like that I identify an object to be designed by a human with certainty, yet I don't identify living beings, who are are more complex that objects like clocks, phones etc, to be designed. How does one counter this line of reasoning? It is very hard to do that without appearing to be absurd.

You could ask them, "When did you stop bashing your wife or girlfriend?" as a response. Their "Who" question is just as invalid. They are assuming the existence of a being that is to be demonstrated.

[RAFH]

Exactly. Man made laws are prescriptive. It is possible to break them which is why we have laws that prohibit it so that you get punished if you do.

Natural laws are descriptive. It is not that you get punished if you travel faster than light, it's simply that we have never observed anything that does and our observations indicates that nothing can do.

It is just by accident that both things are denoted as "laws". However, the difference between "If you cross on red light you get to pay a fine" and "it is impossible to travel faster than light" is enormous.

We do not punish a rock that fail to fall down and instead hangs in the air. It's just that we never observe it happens.

On the other hand we do occationally see people break the laws - and they get punishment as a result if caught.

His theist friend has failed to grasp this difference.

Alf

Using the term 'law' in describing natural phenomena was a huge mistake. But one has to understand the mind set and culture of those times.

I have similar misgivings about the term 'theory'. It also leads to misunderstandings that waste a huge amount of time resolving, if they ever are.

I like 'model' because its meaning is clear and the same. It is a representation to display particular qualities. Might take a bit of effort to get someone to stretch the definition to include a mathematical statement, but at least one isn't trying to erase one notion and replace it with another.

[mopc]

Tell the theist that a Creator does not have to be a God.

[Gwen]

They also use arguments like that I identify an object to be designed by a human with certainty, yet I don't identify living beings, who are are more complex that objects like clocks, phones etc, to be designed. How does one counter this line of reasoning? It is very hard to do that without appearing to be absurd.

It's absurd of them to fail to draw a distinction between you, a human being, recognizing things that you know are designed by other human beings (which you know exist and have enough experience with to be able to recognize human design when you see it) to be designed, because those things cannot come into existence except by being produced, ultimately, by humans, and you, a human being, thinking that things that you know can imperfectly replicate themselves and that you know are eliminated genetically if they don't replicate themselves more than other versions of the same things, assuming that they must have been designed by some kind of deity (whom you have no experience with, and you have no idea how it works), and then assuming that the deity is one described just so by their religions, complete with miracles, a whole cosmology and theodicy, probably a hierarchy of supernatural beings, salvation, and a prescription for living your life.

[darkfox]

I've been arguing with some theists about the existence of God. They claim that the existence of the universe, its stars, etc are evidence of God. If one says that the physical laws made gravitation and so on, they would ask who made the physical laws.

The physical laws are descriptions of nature - so they didn't make anything.

Putting that to one side, you should be more careful with your use of language - your counter argument "one says that the physical laws made gravitation" assumes that the universe was made - yet that is the very idea you are countering!


They also use arguments like that I identify an object to be designed by a human with certainty, yet I don't identify living beings, who are are more complex than objects like clocks, phones etc, to be designed. How does one counter this line of reasoning? It is very hard to do that without appearing to be absurd.

This part is more interesting. What is meant by "designed"? Evolution pretty much supplants a conscious designer with an unconscious designer, namely nature. So man is to nature, as the clock is to man. Therefore while it is reasonable to say a clock is designed by man it is also reasonable to say that the clock is designed by nature, because nature via evolution begat man, who then begat the clock!

Please don't misundercomprehend - nature does not purposify - because nature is not conscious, but then again neither is ADT, GABA, Dopamine, Glycine, or acetylcholine| Go figure!

[joedad]

I've been arguing with some theists about the existence of God. They claim that the existence of the universe, its stars, etc are evidence of God. If one says that the physical laws made gravitation and so on, they would ask who made the physical laws. They also use arguments like that I identify an object to be designed by a human with certainty, yet I don't identify living beings, who are are more complex that objects like clocks, phones etc, to be designed. How does one counter this line of reasoning? It is very hard to do that without appearing to be absurd.If they’re saying that the universe is designed, the counter is simple.

Their claim is that the God is undesigned. But if the God is undesigned, yet has the ability to design a Universe, then it follows that that which is designed (the Universe) can come from that which is undesigned (the God).

So if design can come from that which is undesigned, a designed universe clearly doesn’t need a designer.

[J. T.]

People who use these clock/car/can-opener analogies are probably incapable of determining that those things are designed. They already know that those things are designed, but they like to pretend that they worked it out by looking at them.