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

[Neo-Scholastic]

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/

There was never something so obvious that Hume didn't doubt it, except of course his own certain doubt.

[Cyberman]

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

Huge sleight of hand aside:

If a creator comes into existence and no-one saw it happen, did it have a maker?

[Brian37]

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

Huge sleight of hand aside:

If a creator comes into existence and no-one saw it happen, did it have a maker?

God/s do have a maker, human gullibility and their own imagination.

[Joods]

Oh, yay. Another design argument. As if we hadn't heard it 100 times already.

It was bullshit all the other times too.

Lol. 

He's new. Give 'im a break. He doesn't know how well-worn the argument is.

I'm sure he knows. They all know  in one way or another. It's just a matter of seeing how long they last and how weak their arguments are.

[Mister Agenda]

(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).

There is no such scientific principle. The appearance of virtual particles contradicts the notion, which is all that is.

"The universe is something." I think that would be classified as a true statement.

Yes, the universe is something. But it's not true that nothing can't result in something. It's certainly not true in math, all kinds of things can come from nothing as long as they add up to zero: 0=2+4-6=0.

"Therefore the universe came from something." I think that would be a nice logical conclusion.

It doesn't use logic or evidence, so I don't know why you would think it's a logical conclusion. The universe either appeared spontaneously or came from whatever preceded it. There's math and physics that says a quantum vacuum fluctuation can produce a universe. That may not be what happened, but if it did, the energy of the universe should add up to zero (total positive energy plus total negative energy cancelling each other out). We don't know that the energy of the universe actually adds up to zero, but we know it's at least very close to it.

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.

See virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. It has certainly not been established that everything requires a maker to exist. In fact, we have excellent naturalistic alternative origins for everything that have the advantage of working math and not violating physics as we know it.

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.

Since you asked me to correct you if you are wrong: you are wrong. You're saying that since everything that people make requires a person to make it, that everything people don't make was made by a some posited personal being. That does not follow, and those things not made by people (or other biological organisms) are very different from those things that exist without having been made by such creatures. We also know a good deal about the undirected natural processes that result in 'everything else'. No intelligence required, just gravity, mainly.

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.

You don't seem to be a very good judge of what is logical or scientific. A good rule of thumb is that if someone is telling you how logical and scientific they're being every few minutes, that's probably the last thing they're being. We don't know exactly how the universe came to be, but it's more a problem of having multiple plausible naturalistic hypotheses that we are unable to test at this time.

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

Whether or not something had a maker, it did or did not regardless if anyone saw it being made. If we see a house, we know a person designed it and people (or possibly their robots) built it; because we know where houses come from. We don't know for sure yet where universe come from, but there's no evidence that intelligent direction is required.

[CapnAwesome]

Can't people come up with their own arguments? You can find 150 year old refutations of this.

One argument that doesn't seem to get made very much with it is that it's really an argument for polytheism. Is there a complicated house that has but a single buildèr? No. Someone laid the foundation and someone else painted the paint.

That rolex? Someone mined the gold for it, someone else smelted it, someone else put together the gears and only then is there a watchmaker. The more complicated something is, the more people it takes. So a human being is more complicated than that. It would undoubtedly take many gods to make. That is really the unintentional moral of everything in that argument.

So I would assume you are probably a Hindu, right?

[WinterHold]

Hello, OP.

The universe is very similar in its building blocks; for example you always have standards that make up what we know.
For instance; it's a standards that life as we know it require water. It's also a standard that Chemical reactions take place everywhere we know. The Physical realm we are a part of, is the same physical realm for others.

The design is unified; or in other words: was made by the same entity.
Even when we exclude this theory; we remain with the atoms that caused the big bang: where did they come from? It becomes an unbreakable loop until we break free from it with the assumption, that an infinite, stronger force we know nothing about -God-, existed and made the big bang happen.

The difference between theism and atheism; to me; is this exact spot: some believe the creator is intelligent; others believe the creator was thoughtless particles that exploded.

[Jackalope]

What is it about the properties of houses and the universe that allows for such a comparison to be valid?

[bennyboy]

What is it about the properties of houses and the universe that allows for such a comparison to be valid?

Cuz. . . you know. . . houses and the universe both exist.  So if houses exist due to one cause, then the universe must obviously exist due to the same cause.

[brewer]

Looks like Dan is a poop and run. I'm moving on.