My House Did not have a Builder (or did it?)

[Angrboda]

Hume criticizes the argument on two main grounds. First, Hume rejects the analogy between the material universe and any particular human artifact. As Hume states the relevant rule of analogy, "wherever you depart in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionably the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty" (Hume, Dialogues, Part II). Hume then goes on to argue that the cases are simply too dissimilar to support an inference that they are like effects having like causes:

"If we see a house,… we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect (Hume, Dialogues, Part II)."

Since the analogy fails, Hume argues that we would need to have experience with the creation of material worlds in order to justify any a posteriori claims about the causes of any particular material world; since we obviously lack such experience, we lack adequate justification for the claim that the material universe has an intelligent cause.

Second, Hume argues that, even if the resemblance between the material universe and human artifacts justified thinking they have similar causes, it would not justify thinking that an all-perfect God exists and created the world. For example, there is nothing in the argument that would warrant the inference that the creator of the universe is perfectly intelligent or perfectly good. Indeed, Hume argues that there is nothing there that would justify thinking even that there is just one deity: "what shadow of an argument... can you produce from your hypothesis to prove the unity of the Deity? A great number of men join in building a house or ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth; why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world" (Hume Dialogues, Part V)?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/

[Minimalist]

(If a house shows up in a neighborhood, and no one saw it being built, did it have a builder?)

It's probably listed on the building permit.

[Fireball]

(If a house shows up in a neighborhood, and no one saw it being built, did it have a builder?)

It's probably listed on the building permit.

Well, fucking DUH, right? Tho this guy is thinking "builder of the universe", and blaming/shaming a "god" for it.

[Minimalist]

I wonder if god stiffed his contractors like the WLB does?

[possibletarian]

Welcome Dan

[chimp3]

(If a house shows up in a neighborhood, and no one saw it being built, did it have a builder?)

"From nothing nothing comes" is scientific. (I think it still is, isn't it? Under debate, maybe).
"The universe is something." I think that would be classified as a true statement.
"Therefore the universe came from something." I think that would be a nice logical conclusion.
Now, since it is universally observed (which observation is required in order for anything to be classified as scientific), that anything made has a maker, some consideration should be taken as to the nature of the maker of a given thing.
The maker of a wooden chair just needs to know enough about woodworking in order to have planned and accomplished the fashioning and construction of the chair. It is a functional item, with a useful purpose, so it would require intelligence to accomplish the production of a wooden chair, albeit not necessarily a great intelligence, because the item is not very complex.
A Rolex watch also requires a maker, and one who needs enough intelligence to make all the small intricate parts of the watch, and to make them all work together correctly and properly, and over a long period of time. The maker would have to know how to tell time, and how to cause the made item to also be able to tell time. This item is also quite functional, and also has a useful purpose, but since it is much more complex than a wooden chair, it requires more intelligence, and more labor as well, to accomplish the production of it.
Now the same could be said of a house, a hotel, a hospital, a skyscraper, or an entire city. Each requiring more intelligence, more organization, and more manpower to accomplish it's respective product.
So using this same reasoning, (and I think it is logical reasoning. Correct me if I am wrong), we must assume that the level of intelligence, organization, and power required to accomplish such a thing as an entire universe, and not just any universe, with all of it's nearly innumerable complexities, but a universe in which there is life, and not just life, but an astoundingly wide variety of forms of life, each with their various levels of intelligence, purpose, and function- I say we must assume that the level of intelligence, organization, and power required to accomplish this is utterly incalculable.
I think that conclusion is quite logical, and about as scientific as we can be, since, though we did not witness the creation of the universe, all other things that we know to be made are also known to have a maker, and the making of such made things can be observed. It would I think, therefore be quite an illogical conclusion that the universe itself could not have a maker.

(If a universe comes into existence, and no one saw it being made, did it have a maker?)

If there was a builder I want a building inspection before I sign the mortgage!

[Fireball]

I wonder if god stiffed his contractors like the WLB does?

Many years ago, I knew a guy who was asked to make some jewelry for a visiting Catholic "dignitary". He made sure to make them pay upon delivery, because in the past, other people had said, "God will pay you back", and he got zip for the materials or work.

[Cyberman]

As for the OP, just because someone didn't see something built doesn't mean it didn't have a builder, and a putative "god" doesn't have to be named/blamed for said edifice.

It's worse than that. What people like the OP are saying is basically "Nobody knows who built this thing, so obviously it was a god" without realising - or hoping we won't realise - that "nobody knows" means precisely that and doesn't mean they get to say "therefore we know". Not without getting called out for it, anyway.

Besides, by limiting one's search parameters to "who did it" instead of "what did it" blinds one to answers that don't slit their throats on Occam's Razor.

[downbeatplumb]

(If a universe comes into existence, and no one saw it being made, did it have a maker?)

Lets break this down.
The universe comes into existence.
I assume he means the beginning of space time and matter.
In which case how can it have a creator?
Before the universe there is no place for a creator to be, no matter for anything to create from or even be creatory matter whatever that would be and no time to exist in.
So at the very minimum there would need to a place and time for a creator to be in.
And if you have that then you no longer need a creator.

[Brian37]

Is cancer designed? Is Eboli designed? How come cockroaches outnumber humans and are faster breeders. Humans share the same breathing eating pathway and can choke to death on their food, whereas dolphins have separate eating breathing pathways.