(March 9, 2021 at 10:49 pm)Apollo Wrote: That’s what a typical place looks like in universe. Big cold with nothing happening.

If that’s some design then the designer flunked big time. 

Why do you think that a universe like this is a design failure? I think you're making a number of assumptions on which to base your judgment. 

Why is a big cold place a failure? Does something have to be useful for people to be a success? If it were full of shopping malls and theme parks would it be good? I think the ecology movement has taught us to move beyond the idea that only those things that can be exploited by people are good. 

The argument seems like an economic one. That which is useful is good, that which can't be used is a waste. I think this is human-centric and narrow. 

The universe is very big and lasts a long time. Humans, on the other hand, occupy only a tiny fraction of the universe in time and space. We know extremely little about the universe. We evolved for survival, not understanding. There is probably all kinds of stuff going on that people don't know about, and probably can't know about. Who's to say that the places not welcoming to us are "failures" in every sense? We don't have enough information to judge.

The God of the philosophers and the theologians is not like Plato's Demiurge. God as "Ground of Being" and "actualization of all potentials" underlies the existence of the universe, including all the "empty" places, with no effort whatsoever. Therefore it's not as if he had wasted time and money by building a house with rooms that people can't live in. The idea of God "wasting effort" is incoherent. Nor, according to theology, does God need or want anything. Therefore the idea of being "useful" to God is incoherent. God has no goals, therefore nothing is more useful to him than anything else. 

So again, if you judge that the universe is a design failure you're just saying that you would have done it differently. But since none of us is omnipotent or omniscient, that's a matter of personal taste, not an argument.

(March 10, 2021 at 6:06 am)Rahn127 Wrote: Using a naturalistic model of the universe, I can make accurate predictions about it's behavior and up to a certain point, it's origin.

Two comments on this:

1. The model you use limits what you see or don't see. To the behavioral geneticist, everything people do can be explained from the perspective of genes. But to the social psychologist all of behavior can be explained from the perspective of culture and learning. (The boundaries overlap less these days.) The point is this: observation is theory-laden—and what you see is influenced by the pair of glasses you wear.

2. I consider myself a naturalist, just not an atheist. Biology, physics, psychology, none of the sciences go away under theism. The universe is still what is it, and functions how it does, whether there's a God in it or not. (Perhaps this only works with Christianity: where God creates but doesn't pull the Sun like Apollo.)

Apollo kicks a star, your god is the grand nudger. I'm not sure theres much of a difference there, or that whatever difference there is... skews in the way you'd like... to positively mischaracterize your own faith.

I think that the attributes which matter (in both cases) are the ones which surround healing. Both attempts at a god are expressions of some similar belief in, as you would put it, restoration. We could test that assumption. Is there any belief in any superstition that you would maintain over your belief in restoration, or at least the possibility of restoration? If a designed universe prevented restoration - for example. Would you then reject your religious beliefs about restoration as a sacred and inviolable truth?

(March 10, 2021 at 8:27 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 9, 2021 at 10:49 pm)Apollo Wrote: That’s what a typical place looks like in universe. Big cold with nothing happening.

If that’s some design then the designer flunked big time. 

Why do you think that a universe like this is a design failure? I think you're making a number of assumptions on which to base your judgment. 

Why is a big cold place a failure? Does something have to be useful for people to be a success? If it were full of shopping malls and theme parks would it be good? I think the ecology movement has taught us to move beyond the idea that only those things that can be exploited by people are good. 

The argument seems like an economic one. That which is useful is good, that which can't be used is a waste. I think this is human-centric and narrow. 

The universe is very big and lasts a long time. Humans, on the other hand, occupy only a tiny fraction of the universe in time and space. We know extremely little about the universe. We evolved for survival, not understanding. There is probably all kinds of stuff going on that people don't know about, and probably can't know about. Who's to say that the places not welcoming to us are "failures" in every sense? We don't have enough information to judge.

The God of the philosophers and the theologians is not like Plato's Demiurge. God as "Ground of Being" and "actualization of all potentials" underlies the existence of the universe, including all the "empty" places, with no effort whatsoever. Therefore it's not as if he had wasted time and money by building a house with rooms that people can't live in. The idea of God "wasting effort" is incoherent. Nor, according to theology, does God need or want anything. Therefore the idea of being "useful" to God is incoherent. God has no goals, therefore nothing is more useful to him than anything else. 

So again, if you judge that the universe is a design failure you're just saying that you would have done it differently. But since none of us is omnipotent or omniscient, that's a matter of personal taste, not an argument.

Design argument is an anthropomorphic argument—if you take that as a valid hypothesis then you’d expect per more matter in the universe to give it semblance of a design, allowing designable, interesting things to happen more frequently in abundance. A cold, black, empty space doesn’t support such logical conclusion based on such hypothesis.

For a hypothesis to be taken seriously it has to be logically consistent and not some contortion that would bend the logic to fit the hypothesis.

(March 10, 2021 at 8:27 am)Belacqua Wrote: The argument seems like an economic one. That which is useful is good, that which can't be used is a waste. I think this is human-centric and narrow. 

Interestingly, within the Christian narrative, God makes mankind partakers in the creative process: He places the responsibility of maintaining and inhabiting creation on them. (As well as the ability to procreate—quite literally creating another life.)

So it's worth noting that Christianity views emptiness as intentional. God doesn't just fill the Earth to the brim, he makes a garden and places two people in it. The rest of the planet, and perhaps the Solar System, is our canvass to paint, our ground to till, our problem to solve.

The animals are in charge of the zoo? This is gods design? What could go wrong, right. That's not a comically blunt example of incompetence...no sir!

(March 10, 2021 at 10:24 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: So it's worth noting that Christianity views emptiness as intentional. God doesn't just fill the Earth to the brim, he makes a garden and places two people in it. The rest of the planet, and perhaps the Solar System, is our canvass to paint, our ground to till, our problem to solve.

You know John I recognise that sentiment, i often wondered as a christian if the universe was there for us to one day walk into (it helped that i loved sci-fi of course). Now I just think it's empty space..lol

Of course early believers had no real concept of the vastness of space, i suspect our explanations will grow to fit the canvas we're given, and while i no longer believe that space was created for us to expand into, i still hope that one day humans make it to the stars.

(March 10, 2021 at 10:24 am)Apollo Wrote: Design argument is an anthropomorphic argument—if you take that as a valid hypothesis then you’d expect per more matter in the universe to give it semblance of a design, allowing designable, interesting things to happen more frequently in abundance. A cold, black, empty space doesn’t support such logical conclusion based on such hypothesis.

For a hypothesis to be taken seriously it has to be logically consistent and not some contortion that would bend the logic to fit the hypothesis.

Why doesn't a cold black empty space support such a conclusion? Why would I expect "per more matter"? 

When you say it doesn't have the semblance of design, what criteria are you using to judge what design looks like?

Ah, Bel arguing that an uninhabitable void making up the majority of the universe doesn't cause a problem for the claim it was all made for life. One wonders what would be an issue? Oh wait nothing because anything can count as evidence of design as long as you can make up a fairytale about it

Wouldn't that be answered in the very first sentence of the quoted material?

If we take an anthropomorphic argument as a valid hypothesis, then those are the criteria that we're going to use to judge what looks designed, designed for what... and.... just flat out assuming that it is...the quality of that design. There could be any number of potential applications for a designed universe such as our own - but..expanding into...by the parameters of the alleged design itself, isn't one of them. Space is either poorly designed for this purpose, or not designed for such a purpose at all.