Has Science done away with a need for God?

[Longhorn]

Yea, great. So you have a designer. Who designed him? Why is it your god? Why is it a god at all? Why does this design look evolved?

You get too far ahead.  I asked the questions because I have seen far too many people saying that if one accepts there is a God then they must reject Science.  I don't find the two to be incompatible.  

People forget there is more than one method of explanation.  Science can give us the mechanics explanation, the "how" if you will, but it cannot answer the why.  Suppose I put it like this:

I present to you the internal combustion engine.  Now I give you two choices, the laws of thermodynamics and Henry Ford.  You need both.  Just because you can can explain how something works does not remove the need for the agent that made it work.  We can explain every single detail of an internal combustion engine, but that does not mean the intelligent mind of Henry Ford did not exist.  As a matter of fact it is because of the sheer complexity of that engine we must assume a mind behind it.    

I find it silly when people state the Laws of Science are explanations for the universe.  Laws do not create anything.  They only describe what normally happens and that what we can observe and test.  As C.S. Lewis put it, We know that 2+2=4 but the laws of arithmetic have never produced a single farthing.

Don't dodge. You said the argument from design is strong, so I pointed out it's holes. How do you deal with them?

[Esquilax]

People forget there is more than one method of explanation.  Science can give us the mechanics explanation, the "how" if you will, but it cannot answer the why.

Your objection assumes that there is a "why?" or purpose involved.

 Suppose I put it like this:

I present to you the internal combustion engine.  Now I give you two choices, the laws of thermodynamics and Henry Ford.  You need both.  Just because you can can explain how something works does not remove the need for the agent that made it work.  We can explain every single detail of an internal combustion engine, but that does not mean the intelligent mind of Henry Ford did not exist.  As a matter of fact it is because of the sheer complexity of that engine we must assume a mind behind it.    

And now, let's put it a different way, one that accurately represents what your actual beliefs are on the matter.

I present to you the internal combustion engine. Now I give you two choices: the laws of thermodynamics and Slunchy, the spirit octopus who makes engines work. You need both. Just because you can can explain how something works does not remove the need for the agent that made it work. We can explain every single detail of an internal combustion engine, but that does not mean the intelligent mind of Slunchy did not exist. As a matter of fact it is because of the sheer complexity of that engine we must assume a mind behind it.

You can't give two choices where both choices are demonstrably real things and still accurately represent your religious beliefs, dude. In order to be accurate, one of the choices needs to be completely unverifiable and undemonstrated, that might not even be possible, that works via an equally undemonstrated and potentially impossible mechanism. Hence, Slunchy; if I offered you the real choice, would you assume you needed Slunchy for engines to work?

No? So why should I assume your god? Don't mention complexity, that's begging the question because you're assuming that complexity must be designed, making the entire argument circular. We know that complex things can arise naturally; the fact that you baselessly assert that no, actually your god must be involved in this seemingly natural process, without evidence, is not an argument.

[Kingpin]

You are assuming that the internal combustion engine (or any humanly designed artifact) is relevantly analogous to the universe.  You haven't even begun to justify that leap.

What I am showing is that we see something with complexity, function and purpose and we immediately assume a mind behind it.  Do you not look at something as simple as a letter and assume someone with a mind produced it?  

I find it fascinating how we can take something simple as the internal combustion engine and assume there was a mind behind it, but see something infinitely more complex as the universe and say its pure chance with no need for an intelligence behind it?  I don't find that logic very convincing.

[Crossless2.0]

You are assuming that the internal combustion engine (or any humanly designed artifact) is relevantly analogous to the universe.  You haven't even begun to justify that leap.

What I am showing is that we see something with complexity, function and purpose and we immediately assume a mind behind it.  Do you not look at something as simple as a letter and assume someone with a mind produced it?  

I find it fascinating how we can take something simple as the internal combustion engine and assume there was a mind behind it, but see something more infinitely more complex as the universe and say its pure chance with no need for an intelligence behind it?  I don't find that logic very convincing.

Ok, so what is the function or purpose of the universe?

[Brakeman]

People forget there is more than one method of explanation.  Science can give us the mechanics explanation, the "how" if you will, but it cannot answer the why.

Incorrect! Science does give us the why. If I release a ball in the air, science tells me gravity will act on it an bring it down, thus answering "why" the ball fell.

It is god that doesn't answer how or why. All of his "how's" are answered by "WoOOo WoOOo Magic" and all of his why's are answered by clueless idiots that have claimed throughout history to speak for him.

You have to be painfully stupid not to get this..

[Alex K]

You are assuming that the internal combustion engine (or any humanly designed artifact) is relevantly analogous to the universe.  You haven't even begun to justify that leap.

What I am showing is that we see something with complexity, function and purpose and we immediately assume a mind behind it.

If you know the first thing about evolution by natural selection, you won't. You'll first examine the object and ask yourself whether it is of a type that can undergo a Darwinian process. If yes, you won't jump to the conclusion that a mind had to be involved. If no, you'll be more curious, but will still have to demonstrate that a mind is necessary.

 Do you not look at something as simple as a letter and assume someone with a mind produced it?  

yes, but because see above, the comparison is not valid.

I find it fascinating how we can take something simple as the internal combustion engine and assume there was a mind behind it, but see something infinitely more complex as the universe and say its pure chance with no need for an intelligence behind it?  I don't find that logic very convincing.

Again, see above.

[Minimalist]

Flew is an interesting case.  A lifelong atheist when his brain started turning to mush he became a deist.  Confirms a lot of my theories about "believers."

[Esquilax]

What I am showing is that we see something with complexity, function and purpose and we immediately assume a mind behind it.  Do you not look at something as simple as a letter and assume someone with a mind produced it?  

How did you determine that the universe has function and purpose?

You do know that computers can write letters, yes? Do computers have minds?

I find it fascinating how we can take something simple as the internal combustion engine and assume there was a mind behind it, but see something infinitely more complex as the universe and say its pure chance with no need for an intelligence behind it?  I don't find that logic very convincing.

Complexity is not a hallmark of design. Simplicity is; a designer would want to make his machine work with the fewest moving parts, less add ons to increase the cost, less potentially breakable bits. That's why modern computers shrink rather than growing larger and more complicated than the first ones.

And again, you're making a circular argument: How do you know the universe was designed? Because it's complex. How do you know that complex things are designed? Because complexity denotes design. So, the universe is designed because it's complex, and complex things are designed because complexity denotes design and the universe is complex therefore it's designed...

You're just looking at properties that the universe possesses and then arbitrarily demanding that we take those properties as evidence of design.

[robvalue]

I notice there is still no definition of "God". This is the problem, I have no idea what people are talking about when they say this.

If the questions is simply, "Did some sort of intelligence set our reality in motion?" the honest answer is, "Don't know". If there is, we have no way of finding out anything about it at present, if we ever can. Making up stories about it is unhelpful. The most reasonable scenario seems to be the simulation hypothesis.

As for humans, the idea that we are in any way designed is ridiculous fantasy.

[Kingpin]

Rob,

I think every person has an understanding of the definition of God. I for one have no problem with the definition in most dictionaries: "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being"

You may argue that because there are differing definitions of God, it is meaningless but that is not a coherent argument.

Of course, if we eliminate all the concepts that we do not unanimously agree upon or that we do not completely understand, our discussions would be extremely limited. For instance, in Richard Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins attempted to define the word “gene,” but he noted: “My definition will not be to everyone’s taste, but there is no universally agreed definition of gene” (2006, p. 28, emp. added). Charles Darwin himself, when discussing the term “species” (which term was in the title of his most famous book) wrote: “Nor shall I here discuss the various definitions which have been given of the term species. No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species” (1860, p. 38, emp. added). Quotes like these two could be multiplied and are sufficient to show that there need not be unanimous agreement about a term in order for it to have meaning.