8.01.2008

Who Designed The Designer?

"... it is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything." -- G. K. Chesterton

Here we have another common argument used by Neo-Darwinist, usually used in the attempt to redirect the argument of origins back on the proponent of ID (intelligent design). I normally see this question when the Neo-Darwinist has no answer for the Origin of Life (OOL) issue; which how could he if no empirical evidence for the OOL argument exist? Either way, it surprises me that this argument of seemingly amateur nature arises so frequently by those who seem to know so much. The reason is this argument crumbles and proves irrelevant when using science and logic together.

For this we start with the Law of Causality which is the very foundation of science. Since science is the search for causes the question arises…who made (caused) God? But since something undeniably exists today, then something must have always existed: we have 2 options: the universe, or something that caused the universe. The problem for the atheist is that while it is logically possible that the universe is eternal, it does not seem to be actually possible. Scientific and philosophical evidence such as The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Expanding Universe, Radiation from the Big Bang, The Great Galaxy Seeds, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, Radioactive Decay, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument, tells the universe cannot be eternal. So by ruling out one of two options you are left with the only other option—something outside the universe is eternal. So there are 2 possibilities for anything that exist 1) it has always existed and is therefore uncaused, or 2) it had a beginning and was caused by something else (i.e. the universe). So according to the overwhelming evidence, the universe had a beginning, so it must be caused by something else—by something outside itself. Notice that this conclusion is consistent with theistic religions, but is not based on those religions; it is based on good reason and evidence. So I argue the First Cause must be:

A) Self-existent, timeless, immaterial (since the First Cause created time, space, and matter, the first cause must be outside of time, space, and matter). This makes him without limits, or infinite.

B) Extremely powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing

C) Very intelligent, to design the universe with such incredible precision

D) Personal, in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe, (an impersonal force has no ability to make choices.)


An article from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/197.asp says:


  1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
  2. The universe has a beginning.
  3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

"It's important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the Creator of the whole universe, he is the Creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time. Therefore He doesn't have a cause."

"The "Who made God?" question is a textbook example of the compound question fallacy. A fallacious compound question occurs when one ignores questions that should be asked first. For example, "have you stopped beating your spouse?" is fallacious when it is has not been established that one has ever beaten one's spouse. Likewise, "Who made God?" presupposes the prior question "Is God a created being?" http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/whomade.htm

  1. From nothing, nothing comes.
  2. Therefore, if nothing existed in the past, nothing would exist now.
  3. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
  4. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its existence.
  5. The universe began to exist.
  6. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
  7. An actual infinity cannot exist.
  8. An infinite regress of cause and effect would be an actual infinity.
  9. "One might take issue with the soundness of these premises, but the point here is that unless one wants to argue that something can come from nothing (and I realize that there are atheists who do so), something has always existed. The KCA then goes on to argue that the universe has not always existed and that, therefore, something else has always existed. That's why proponents of the KCA can maintain both that God is uncaused and that the universe has a cause, without special pleading." http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/whomade.htm

    "One need not fully understand the origin or identity of the designer to determine that an object was designed. Thus, this question is essentially irrelevant to intelligent design theory, which merely seeks to detect if an object was designed. If SETI detects a signal from intelligent extra-terrestrial life, we need not know how that life form arose to determine that there was indeed an intelligent being that sent the signal. Intelligent design theory cannot address the identity or origin of the designer--it is a philosophical / religious question that lies outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Christianity postulates the religious answer to this question that the designer is God who by definition is eternally existent and has no origin. There is no logical philosophical impossibility with this being the case (akin to Aristotle's 'unmoved mover') as a religious answer to the origin of the designer." http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1147






3 comments:

Jeremy said...

The problem I have with the rational given for the universe having a beginning stems from this distinction: while all those scientific laws, theories and hypotheses you listed "The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Expanding Universe, Radiation from the Big Bang, The Great Galaxy Seeds, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, Radioactive Decay, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument" might say this universe may not have always existed, they do not rule out the possibility of alternate universes existing. According to two friends of mine who are physics and astronomy majors Western Washington University (where I attend college), the current consensus in scientific circles is that this universe is just one of an infinite number. The Big Bang was just one collapse in an infinite cycle of expansion and collapse.

And, you can't just avoid talking about the nature of the designer by saying it's a religious/philosophical question outside the realm of science. If this designer created the universe, then it must be able to affect physical objects. If it can affect physical objects, then it can be measured. If it can be measured, then it falls under the realm of science. ID proponents should be investigating the nature of the designer just as hard as they are evidence of its design. For, the only true way ID can make predictions (I will touch on this in a later comment, I've been quite busy lately) is if something about the nature of the designer is known. For all we know, the designer is not particularly good, and has just been fortunate in its creations.

Addressing your direct comment to me:

"Faulting the theory(Intelligent Design) for something it never claims to explain(origin of designer)is like saying the inability of the theory of gravitation to explain where gravity came from is a weakness of the theory."

I don't believe this is an accurate comparison. While the theory of gravitation itself does not explain from whence gravity came, there are other hypotheses out there that do. So, it would be appropriate for ID proponents to develop hypotheses, separate from ID if they must be, to explain the nature of the designer. The theory of evolution does not encounter this problem. There is know claimed intelligent force driving evolution to be explained. And the whole "primordial soup" argument you brought up does not prove that the theory of evolution somehow deals with the origin of life. The idea of abiogenesis, life from non-life, is separate from evolution via natural selection.

Chris_topher said...

Hey Jeremy how’s it going? We’ll start from the beginning here with the Multiple Universe Theory (which as you say, is the current consensus in scientific circles).
Ok so basically, if I assume correctly, you’re implying that with an infinite amount of universes being created, eventually one that could support life (and all those anthropic constants needed) would arise. Just like if I played the lottery enough my chances of winning will increase..right? Or since there is a winning ticket, out of the millions available, we just got lucky enough to be on that winning ticket (i.e. planet earth). Ok so let’s say this is the argument (if it’s not correct me and we’ll head in a different direction) there are multiple problems with the multiple-universe theory.
The first problem and most significant is that there is no evidence for it. The evidence shows that all finite reality came into existence via the big bang. If other finite realities exist, they’re beyond our detection. The multi-universe theory is a metaphysical concoction built upon blind faith, not to say this theory won’t work in Star Wars or some other fairy tale, I just don’t think it will works very well within reality.
Second, (and I know we haven’t talked about this) is that an infinite number of finite things- whether it be books, cars, dogs, bangs, or universes- is an actual impossibility. There can’t be an unlimited number of limited universes. If you would like to dig deeper into this topic I’d be happy to.
Third, for other universes to exist, they would need fine-tuning just to get started, just like ours did. So positing multiple universes doesn’t eliminate the need for a Designer… lol, all it does is multiply the need for a Designer.
Forth, the multi-universe theory is so broad that you could explain any event by it. For example, perhaps we just so happen to be in the universe where the holocaust appeared to be a murder, but in actuality the Jews secretly conspired with the Germans and sent themselves to the ovens. The multi- universe theory is so broad that it can be used as an excuse for the people that made it up. Maybe we just happen to be in the universe where people are irrational enough to suggest that such nonsense is the truth. The theory is as absurd as astronauts on a space shuttle denying the fact that NASA designed and built their spacecraft in favor of the theory that there are an infinite number of naturally occurring spacecraft out there and they’re just lucky enough to be on the one that supports life.
The Multiple Universe Theory is what you call an extreme theory used to explain away extreme evidence for design.

You state that:
“And, you can't just avoid talking about the nature of the designer by saying it's a religious/philosophical question outside the realm of science”
The nature of the designer becomes apparent and outside the realm of science due to the fact that finding his nature is outside the world of finite and familiar things. Anything that answers the nature of who God is is going to be unfamiliar to us as I’m sure the bible is unfamiliar to you. Only by science can you conclude that there is a Designer, his nature however may be best explained by logic. For God cannot exist in the same way that the physical world exist for he created it, he is not creation.
You state that:
“If this designer created the universe, then it must be able to affect physical objects”
Let’s use gravity again for this example. Throw a ball into the air, what does it do? Of course, it falls down towards earth from where it came. Now what affected that physical object (in this case the ball) to cause it to return? Gravity right, well than that begs the question who or what created the law of gravity which affected the physical object called a ball. Gravity being an anthropic constant is best explained by a designing agent. You can’t give chance a chance in producing something of such precision. For if gravity were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent our sun would not exist.
You than state:
“If it can affect physical objects, then it can be measured”
Yes, gravity can be measured and so can the probabilities of it occurring by chance.
You than state:
“If it can be measured, then it falls under the realm of science”
Agreed, that based upon the fact that the designer can affect physical objects, which can be measured, the case for intelligent design truly is scientific (in your overview of the criteria for what the realm of science should look like). The problem your returning to is not that God exist or does not exist, it’s that to you God CANNOT exist.
Next you state:
“ID proponents should be investigating the nature of the designer just as hard as they are evidence of its design.”
Hmm I’d argue that ID proponents are in favor of their position because they asses the same scientific research and theory that Neo-Darwinist asses. By compiling evidences for a theory that better matches a different theory they are lead to question the original theory in order to formulate a more reasonable conclusion of the evidence. The nature than of the designer becomes beside the point, because the point is, the evidence points to a Designer. How than should ID balance science and theism to your liking? If you want to learn about God’s nature I’d start with the giving of his only begotten and proceed from there. You and I both know that in today’s world for ID to investigate the nature of the Designer would be scientific suicide. So I find it healthy for ID proponents to leave finding the nature of the designer to those that wish to seek him out.
In your last paragraph you seem to state that even though Neo-Darwinist don’t have an answerer for the origin of life does not mean that evolution does not occur now. Just like the last example the same could be said about ID. For even though we may not be able to define who the Intelligent Agent is that started life, ID cannot be dismissed based on the fact that the evidence points to a designer. Maybe this can help you understand why ID is creating such a stir: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02/a_dialogue_concerning_intellig.html
In conclusion I just want to say that you can investigate the Designer the same way you can investigate things you cannot see, by observing their effects. Just like with gravity in which you can only observe it’s affects. We cant observe the human mind directly either, but only it’s effects. It’s from those effects that we can make a rational suggestion to the existence of a cause.
The post your reading right now is an example of this. Why do you assume that this post is an effect of the human mind? Probably because all your observational experience tells you that a post like this is an effect from a pre existing intelligence. Not because some random event such as a tornado ripping through my home produced the words your reading. In essence the same logic is used for Intelligent Design regarding the complexity of our universe.

Jeremy said...

I'm pretty good. I've been busy, but that's not always a bad thing.

You said,
"Ok so basically, if I assume correctly, you’re implying that with an infinite amount of universes being created, eventually one that could support life (and all those anthropic constants needed) would arise. Just like if I played the lottery enough my chances of winning will increase..right?"

No, that's not what I'm implying. I never said that an infinite amount of universes exists now. What I said, and what my physics-major friends say is the scientific consensus, is that the "big bang" was only one in an infinite amount. That is, The universe has never stopped expanding and contracting.

"Anything that answers the nature of who God is is going to be unfamiliar to us as I’m sure the bible is unfamiliar to you."

First off, I was a Catholic for 14 years of my life, so don't tell me how familiar I am with the bible. I would also like to mention that you were the first one to bring god, and therefore religion, religion into this. Why can god always exist, but not an ever-expanding-and-contracting universe? You said an actual infinity cannot exist, but then go on to say god always existed? How can this be? Is there some subtle difference between "actually infinity" and "always" that I'm not grasping? I still maintain that for god to have created everything, he/she/it must have the ability to effect physical objects. So, god cannot be outside our realm of experience.

"Let’s use gravity again for this example. Throw a ball into the air, what does it do? Of course, it falls down towards earth from where it came. Now what affected that physical object (in this case the ball) to cause it to return? Gravity right, well than that begs the question who or what created the law of gravity which affected the physical object called a ball. Gravity being an anthropic constant is best explained by a designing agent."

No, gravity is not best explained by a designing agent? Where is the evidence for this? The perceived "precision" of the universe? Isn't it just as likely that earth and the solar system appear tuned for life because life evolved on earth? Life on earth evolved with constants, like gravity, already in place. These constants were not designed for life. The "fine tuning" argument is like a puddle remarking on how well-designed the hole in which it sits is for it. The puddle thinks this right up until it evaporates completely. The hole was clearly not built for the puddle, the puddle adapted to fit the hole. Just like life on earth. As for what causes gravity, questions like that are exactly what the scientists and engineers who built the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Switzerland seek to answer. One of the LHC's planned experiments is to search for the Higgs boson, a sub-atomic particle predicted by the math of quantum physics. The Higgs boson apparently bestows mass upon matter. (http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/higgs.html) If scientists are working this hard to find out what causes gravity, why is it too much to ask that ID proponents seek the nature of the "designer"?

"The problem your returning to is not that God exist or does not exist, it’s that to you God CANNOT exist."

I really don't like people making these sorts of assumptions about me. When did I ever say god cannot exist? When did I ever even bring up god? I freely admit to being an atheist, and as an atheist, that I do not hold a belief in any god. I lack belief in a god because I don't think there is evidence for one. I do not hold an affirmative belief that there is no god. That's the difference.

"n conclusion I just want to say that you can investigate the Designer the same way you can investigate things you cannot see, by observing their effects. Just like with gravity in which you can only observe it’s affects. We cant observe the human mind directly either, but only it’s effects."

Yes, but that does not stop scientists from asking questions about gravity, and the human mind. Why would ID proponents want to stop when inquiring about the actual designer? That seems a bit intellectually lazy to me.

This may prove to open up an entirely new can of worms, but what the hell I'm in a good mood. Have you seen "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?