Scientific Argument for a Creator?

[Fifty]

I was at a book store yesterday, and I started flipping through the various books in which people claim to have come to the scientific conclusion that God must exist. A lot of them used a similar arguement:

They all say (in one way or another) that the overwhelming complexity of the universe and the various life-sustaining qualities it exhibits are signs that the universe must have been created. A common analogy is that if you found a watch, you would be led to the conclusion that it was created on the basis of its complexity, rather then it just fell together that way.

What is the counter-argument to this, since all of these God books seem to rest on that line of reasoning.

Try your best to answer the question I asked. A lot of times I notice that when a topic is posted like this people will respond with something like "the notion of god is ridiculous" or "I need not believe your childlike fairy tales!". I know that a counter-argument probably exists, and I'm asking you to tell me what it is. I'm not trying to argue this line of reasoning, so refrain from things like "you must be an illogical idiot from jesusland if you believe this". Thanks!

 

[SolarKnight]

A counter - argument I heard for "The universe is so perfect for life Theory" is that that is only valid from a human point of view.

The real reason the universe is so "perfect" for life is that life has had 4.5 billion years to adapt to the universe, so in reality, life is perfect for the universe, and not the other way around.

 

[Babbler]

They all say (in one way or another) that the overwhelming complexity of the universe and the various life-sustaining qualities it exhibits are signs that the universe must have been created. A common analogy is that if you found a watch, you would be led to the conclusion that it was created on the basis of its complexity, rather then it just fell together that way.

That seems to cover two different ideas.

First, there is the creation "science" of intellegent design. In short, IDers believe that the biological "mechines," like the human eye, are too complex to be created by random chance of mutation, as the therory of elvotion predicts. Instead it must have been created by an intellegent design -- God, in other words. Biologists shoot back that many of these "machines" have many flaws, like the blind stop of the eye, where the nerves of the eye converge. Indeed, Richard Dawkins, founder of sociobiology, wrote a book titled The Blind Watchmaker.

The second idea is the anthropic princpal, where the universe's constants (Planck's constant, the speed of light, gravitational constant, etc.) are talored to allow life, intellegent life to exsit.

 

[WillJ]

I'll just link to an old post of mine on the topic :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=1871990&postcount=2

 

[FriendlyFire]

It called the "law of specified complexity"
In which states that intelligence can only be created by other intelligence.

Pretty much bullet proof. (At the moment)

 

[Keirador]

This thread need not continue. Your specific question, even utilizing the example you used, has been answered by the book "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. Boring as hell, but informative.

(Just because I'm a theist doesn't mean I disregard atheist texts! Important to keep up with all sides of an argument, you know.)

 

[Keirador]

It called the "law of specified complexity"
In which states that intelligence can only be created by other intelligence.

Pretty much bullet proof. (At the moment)

"The Blind Watchmaker" illustrated well how order may come from chaos. Therefore, more complex things may result from less complex things, allowing intelligence to sprout from non-intelligence, assuming only the laws of physics.

 

[storealex]

If we could prove God, it wouldn't be a matter of faith anymore. Thus there would be no point.

 

[WillJ]

If we could prove God, it wouldn't be a matter of faith anymore. Thus there would be no point.

That seems like a pretty Christian-centric thing to say. The concept of God (by the definition that I think Monk had in mind) is not inherently a matter of faith.

 

[Blasphemous]

None of these ID arguments are really scientific. They are logical* philosophical claims based on the wrong axioms (because you can't actually prove that anything is too complex to be formed at random. You just decide that that's the way it is.)
I'll just send this post before I come to again regret posting at 3:00AM. I'll post more tomorrow.

*Meaning they make common sense to a human brain. We have no way of knowing that our perception of logic is in any way untiversally correct, it's just the best we've got and it works with the universe that out senses show us (and we have no way of testing it with the actual universe, if there is such a thing at all.)

 

[Keirador]

Blind Watchmaker. Richard Dawkins. All the science you need.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

"If you don't believe, and have made up your mind, in the creator then it's best that you live this life like it's your own paradise. However, if you believe in the creator save only yourself! Because in the end the secrets of the creator are with you! Don’t give it to anyone else (they don't deserve it)...keep it to your self and forget the rest, they are the goners. Okay??" (From HamaticBabylon Chronicles, December 2004)

 

[Uiler]

In addition to the Blind Watchmaker argument, we can already see examples of where order comes from things which are non-ordered, apparently with no need for a "Creator" to push things along. I am talking of course of crystals. Crystals are of course non-organic, and hence do not prove that complex organic, living organisms can come from something initially disordered. What it does show is that it is perfectly possible to get order from disorder in some physical systems without a creator. These "self-organising" systems are a big topic in some areas of physics right now.

 

[shadowdude]

Oh like these arguments?

Evidence of Cosmology
Due to immense scientific discovery over the last few centuries, the ancient Kalam cosmological argument has taken on a new powerful force. The argument is simple and logical.

First, whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Second, the universe has a beginning.
Almost all scientists agree that a big-bang occurred in the past, so we can conclude that the universe had a beginning.

The conclusion follows the first two premises, Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Evidence of Physics
One of the most powerful arguments are the discoveries of modern science in the field of physics. All the elements seem to conspire together to get the universe to sustain life. For example, physicist Robin Collins said “gravity is fine tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion”. Interesting that it should be so precise.

The cosmological constant, which represents the energy density of space is as precise as throwing a dart from space and hitting a bull’s eye just a trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter on Earth. Several scientists suggest that there are at least 30 0r more physical or cosmological parameters which must be precisely calculated in order for the universe to be able to sustain life.

Evidence of astronomy
Similar to the fine tuning of the universe, the Earth itself is in the perfect position to maintain life. Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez stated “It would take a star with highly unusual properties, the properties of our sun – the right mass, the right light, the right age, the right distance, the right orbital trajectory, the right galaxy, the precise location to nurture living organisms”

Numerous factors make Earth just right to sustain life. Factors that wouldn't just come together by coincidence.

Evidence of Biochemistry
Darwin once said “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Biochemists have proven that there are “irreducibly complex” molecular machines.

These complicated contraptions are extremely unlikely to have to have been built piece by piece as they had to be present in total in order to maintain life processes. It is quite clear that these structures could not have evolved, they would have to be designed.

Evidence of Biology
Six feet of DNA is coiled into each one of our cells. It contains a four letter alpahbet that spells out the precise information of your body. Coiled into such a small unit is the blueprint for YOU. Scientists agree, that this information is the hallmark of intelligence. If we were to stumble upon a computer and discovered its programming language what would you conclude? Would you conclude that evolved from non living materials and programmed itself? No, you would conclude it was made and programmed by an intelligent being.

Evidence of Consciousness
Many scientists are concluding that laws and chemistry and physics cannot explain how we experience consciousness. We have introspection, sensations, thoughts, emotions, desires, beliefs, and free choice. Some studies have shown that consciousness can continue after a person’s brain has shut down. This would seem to suggest that there is something aside our bodies that allow us to function. This would appear to be evidence that we have a soul.

Also, how did we get this conscious? Professor J.P. Moreland said “You can’t get something from nothing. If the universe began with dead matter having no consciousness, how then how do does something totally different occur – Consciousness, thinking, living, feeling, believing creatures- how could it come from materials that don’t?”

 

[Zwelgje]

If everything is created and made so perfect that it couldn't evolve then tell me why there are so many flaws (diseases). The argument makes no sense. We can't explain it with normal science yet so it must be created by a god. Not too long ago this was also the reason why people said thunder and lightning were created by the gods, now we know better.
Religion will be so passé in the future.

 

[Shadylookin]

I was at a book store yesterday, and I started flipping through the various books in which people claim to have come to the scientific conclusion that God must exist. A lot of them used a similar arguement:

They all say (in one way or another) that the overwhelming complexity of the universe and the various life-sustaining qualities it exhibits are signs that the universe must have been created. A common analogy is that if you found a watch, you would be led to the conclusion that it was created on the basis of its complexity, rather then it just fell together that way.

What is the counter-argument to this, since all of these God books seem to rest on that line of reasoning.

Try your best to answer the question I asked. A lot of times I notice that when a topic is posted like this people will respond with something like "the notion of god is ridiculous" or "I need not believe your childlike fairy tales!". I know that a counter-argument probably exists, and I'm asking you to tell me what it is. I'm not trying to argue this line of reasoning, so refrain from things like "you must be an illogical idiot from jesusland if you believe this". Thanks!

if the universe is so complex and needs a creator(AKA god), then this god must be more complex. If this less complex universe needs a creator than the more complex creator(God) also must have one(as per this argument). then that creator's creator(god's god) since he is more complex than the first god, must also have a creator. Then this creator's creator's creator must be more complex.... and so on and so on forever and ever. For this thing to work something must have just existed, and it is in no way more logical to assume that one of the many gods or mega gods existed instead of the universe just existing. I'd say successfully refuted

 

[Sims2789]

To answer your question simply: no.

 

[Fifty]

if the universe is so complex and needs a creator(AKA god), then this god must be more complex. If this less complex universe needs a creator than the more complex creator(God) also must have one(as per this argument). then that creator's creator(god's god) since he is more complex than the first god, must also have a creator. Then this creator's creator's creator must be more complex.... and so on and so on forever and ever. For this thing to work something must have just existed, and it is in no way more logical to assume that one of the many gods or mega gods existed instead of the universe just existing. I'd say successfully refuted

Thanks, that's something like what I was looking for.


@the people who suggested the book
I'll look into that book, though I have a list of like 34903285028 books that are in the queue to come before it. I have the nasty habit of buying a book that looks interesting, reading some of it, then when I'm about 100 pages into it find another book that I think is interesting, and buy it, and read some of it... etc. Intellectual A.D.D. I guess.

 

[ybbor]

i would recomend reading the perfection KO's creationuism to get the best (and not that much of the worst) of both sides of the argument

just a counter argument to the "everything isn't perefect" arguemnt, who says God had to create everything perfect? with perfection in every being you couldn't maintain proper blance, i see everything being imperfect as an attribute to ID, evolution should have weeded these flaws out

 

[Birdjaguar]

if the universe is so complex and needs a creator(AKA god), then this god must be more complex.

No. God could be simpler. And the rest of your argument falls away. I would contend that god is so simple and basic that it is all that is Real. Complexity is a mask of impermanance and change that hides the oneness of all existence. Science, through QM already tells us that the differenciation that we see is not real and only quarks and leptons exist.

Science cannot ever prove there was a creator. It might be able to prove that there was a moment of creation, but not a creator. The word "creator" implies an extra-unversal being that is separate from the universe. Making the univrese more complex while seeking its origins is going in the wrong direction in my opinion. Go simpler.

For this thing to work something must have just existed,

Yes you are right here. Something does "just exist". There is only one Reality. For convenience we call it god. God alone is.

I'd say successfully refuted

I suggest not. Try again.