If There is no such thing as "Intelligent Design".

[Elijah John]

If there is no such thing as "Intelligent Design", why do intelligent designers (scientists, inventors and engineers) look to Nature for inspiration?

Disclaimer: Please don't make this a thread about atheistic Evolution vs (six day) Biblical Creation, there are other possibilities and combinations to consider.

Some examples from a National Geographic article:

The science of biomimetics including,

-More efficient streamlining based on the structure of the boxfish. (Mercedes study)
-The thorny devil lizard, in effect drinking water through it's scales, actually whisking water via channels between it's scales to it's mouth. (for the irrigation of arid enviroments)
-burs inspired the design of velcro
-the waterproof properties of the lotus leaf is self-cleaning and has inspired "Lotosan" paint, said to better resist water and stains.
-sharkskin scales inhibit the growth and attachment of barnicles and is being studied for ways to treat the hull surfaces of navy ships to make them cleaner and faster.

And of course, the streamline shape of the Mako Shark in inspiring the Corvette. .

Of course there are many other examples of human invention being inspired by Natural (Intelligent?) design.

Granted, this is not proof of a creative Deity, (evidence, perhaps) but for debate, isn't it ironic that some very intelligent and creative people deny design in Nature while at the same time looking to it for inspiration?

And though National Geographic did not address Theistic or Deistic implications, are these examples evidence of at least a Deistic interpretation of the natural world?

[Neatras]

There is no doubt that evolution is an intelligent process.

Fortunately, this kind of claim isn't so readily adopted by the scientific consensus, who are accustomed to substantiating their positions. You focus so heavily on stating that it only matters to you what you believe, but you make these absolute statements regardless. You disguise sweeping arrogant statements of conjecture behind passive statements of personal presupposition. You haven't contributed anything to this specific discussion.

[William]

[Replying to post 10 by Divine Insight]

In the case of a God this doesn't work. After all if the explanation is that a magician is required to explain the existence of anything that appears to be intelligent, then that explanation would need to apply to the God himself. Thus to complete the explanation we need yet another magician who created God, etc. Ad infinitive.

It becomes a never-ending regression, not an explanation.

Your reasoning is rebutted by the simple understanding that GOD has never not existed.

The Infinite Regression problem this is solved by the assumption that consciousness [as in a creator GOD as a whole undivided state,] has always existed.

Whereas the big bang signifies a beginning which requires magical thinking in assuming there is no intelligent creator to explain the existence of the universe.

The magical thinking involved with the belief of random mindless evolution of the universe and everything within it

Timelessness vs infinite regress argument

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 12 by William]

If the Infinite Regression problem can be solved by an assumption, then why not solve the existence of the universe problem with an assumption that the big bang needed no cause?

[William]

[Replying to post 13 by Bust Nak]

If the Infinite Regression problem can be solved by an assumption, then why not solve the existence of the universe problem with an assumption that the big bang needed no cause?

Because the big bang represents the beginning of something.
If you want to argue Infinite Regression, the argument itself states that everything which has a beginning requires an explanation which isn't magical, as to what created it.

The universe had a beginning and everything within the universe also had a beginning.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the universe which 'just happens' - as we see clearly cause and effect, so there is no reason to claim that the universe came into effect, through no cause, as that is magical thinking.

Thus to presume that the big bang 'just happened', is magical thinking.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 13 by Bust Nak]

If the Infinite Regression problem can be solved by an assumption, then why not solve the existence of the universe problem with an assumption that the big bang needed no cause?

Because the big bang represents the beginning of something.
If you want to argue Infinite Regression, the argument itself states that everything which has a beginning requires an explanation which isn't magical, as to what created it.

The universe had a beginning and everything within the universe also had a beginning.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the universe which 'just happens' - as we see clearly cause and effect, so there is no reason to claim that the universe came into effect, through no cause, as that is magical thinking.

Thus to presume that the big bang 'just happened', is magical thinking.

Your making the whole childish and boring infinite regress argument.

I say the Universe can exist uncaused. The Universe doesn't come from nothing. It doesn't come from anywhere. It always exists and always has existed for all time. This is eternal (timeless) existence mind you, not sempiternal (infinite past time). 
 
Time on this view is probably finite and necessarily has a beginning state of minimum entropy(Singularity) and possibly an end state of maximum entropy(Heat Death).

Infinite regress implies logically infinite temporal moments. But we have no problem if we posit a beginning of time.
Outside of the space-time there is no time, so as a whole the Universe it exists in timeless eternity and only some parts of it experience temporal moments(Low-entropy->Max entropy).

Observation: Some other parts of the Universe may experience “a reverse kind of time�(Max-entropy->Min entropy).
Our part of the Universe and maybe other parts may have begin via Random quantum fluctuations or quantum tunneling.

The reality is we don’t have a definitive answer. There are many hypothesis, theories and models for the “beginning� of the universe that scientists are working right now. These new models, hypothesis, theories come to add to the Big Bang Model and supply solution for “The Big Bang singularity� problem, explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Also saying because we have an apparent beginning of the Universe and because you can't imagine the universe having no beginning, therefore a singular sentient being created the universe is just fallacious thinking.

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy.(God of the Gaps)

Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes. (God as a single cause for creation of the universe and life).

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an invalid argument. In a non sequitur, the conclusion is either true or false, but the argument nonetheless asserts the conclusion to be true and is thus fallacious. While a logical argument is a non sequitur if, and only if, it is invalid, the term 'non sequitur' typically refers to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute logical fallacies covered by particular terms (e.g. affirming the consequent). In other words, in practice, 'non sequitur' refers to an unnamed logical fallacy. Often, in fact, 'non sequitur' is used when an irrelevancy is showing up in the conclusion. (The creation of the Universe maybe caused by non-sentient process just like the forming of stars, black holes, planets, mountains, storms, lightning and so one).

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). For example: "This wheel is made of rubber, therefore the vehicle to which it is a part is also made of rubber." This is clearly fallacious, because vehicles are often made with a variety of parts, many of which may not be made of rubber.(Even though things inside the universe have a cause(are effected by entropy-->time) does not necessarily mean therefore the universe itself has a cause).

[Bust Nak]

Because the big bang represents the beginning of something.
If you want to argue Infinite Regression, the argument itself states that everything which has a beginning requires an explanation which isn't magical, as to what created it.

That's the point, you got round the Infinite Regression with an assumption, so too can we assume the Big Bang doesn't need an explanation, magical or otherwise. Done. Why do you get to assume stuff and we don't?

Furthermore, there is nothing in the universe which 'just happens' - as we see clearly cause and effect, so there is no reason to claim that the universe came into effect, through no cause, as that is magical thinking.

There is a cause though, that cause is the Big Bang. Simple.

[William]

[Replying to post 16 by Bust Nak]

That's the point, you got round the Infinite Regression with an assumption, so too can we assume the Big Bang doesn't need an explanation, magical or otherwise. Done. Why do you get to assume stuff and we don't?

You misunderstand me. Everyone is free enough to assume what they want, but if you are now arguing that the "Big Bang doesn't need an explanation" that is slightly different in that the presumption isn't the same as the presumption that a creator is eternal and thus has no beginning and thus requires no explanation regarding 'who or what created the creator' which is what the argument for Infinite Regression was invented to assume - that a creator requires a creator requires a creator, ad infinitum ...

If you want to assume that the universe has had no beginning then explain the Big Bang. Presently the Big Bang speaks to a beginning and thus, one cannot really assume there is no need to explain that. Presuming there is no need to explain that, is not the same as presuming that an eternal being who had no beginning, created the universe, as an explanation. See? You are wanting to presume no explanation whilst I am presuming there is an explanation, so the two presumptions are entirely different and complaining as if they were the same thing, does not help your argument.

There is a cause though, that cause is the Big Bang. Simple.

I have not argued that it isn't. What I said was "there is nothing in the universe which 'just happens' - as we see clearly cause and effect, so there is no reason to claim that the universe came into effect, through no cause, as that is magical thinking."

Magical thinking is assuming the Big Bang happened without a cause. I am not arguing that the Big Bang itself is not the cause of everything as effect in the universe being sourced to that event. I am arguing that this being the case, it stands to reason the Big Bang itself has to also have a cause. Ripple effects are like that.

[Bust Nak]

You misunderstand me. Everyone is free enough to assume what they want, but if you are now arguing that the "Big Bang doesn't need an explanation" that is slightly different in that the presumption isn't the same as the presumption that a creator is eternal and thus has no beginning and thus requires no explanation regarding 'who or what created the creator' which is what the argument for Infinite Regression was invented to assume - that a creator requires a creator requires a creator, ad infinitum ...

Assume the Big Bang is eternal and thus has no beginning and thus requires no explanation regarding who or what created the Big Bang, done. It's exactly the same thing.

If you want to assume that the universe has had no beginning then explain the Big Bang.

n/a

Presently the Big Bang speaks to a beginning and thus, one cannot really assume there is no need to explain that. Presuming there is no need to explain that, is not the same as presuming that an eternal being who had no beginning, created the universe, as an explanation. See?

No, I don't see, since the assumption is the same.

You are wanting to presume no explanation whilst I am presuming there is an explanation, so the two presumptions are entirely different and complaining as if they were the same thing, does not help your argument.

I don't see how they are entirely different at all.

I have not argued that it isn't. What I said was "there is nothing in the universe which 'just happens' - as we see clearly cause and effect, so there is no reason to claim that the universe came into effect, through no cause, as that is magical thinking."

And that's moot, since there is a cause - the Big Bang.

Magical thinking is assuming the Big Bang happened without a cause.

The same magical thinking that assume God does not need a cause.

I am not arguing that the Big Bang itself is not the cause of everything as effect in the universe being sourced to that event. I am arguing that this being the case, it stands to reason the Big Bang itself has to also have a cause. Ripple effects are like that.

The same way it stands to reason God had a creator. So tell me, who created God? Ripple effects are like that.

[William]

[Replying to post 18 by Bust Nak]

Assume the Big Bang is eternal and thus has no beginning and thus requires no explanation regarding who or what created the Big Bang, done. It's exactly the same thing.

As explained Bust Nak, the problem with this is that the Big Bang is essentially the event which the Theory of Evolution claims as evidence of the universe having a beginning, so to dismiss this by assuming the Big Bang is eternal and thus had no beginning is contrary to the Big Bang theory.

However, if you can explain the Big Bang as something other than the beginning of the universe, I am more than happy to explore your presumption in more detail. Of course your explanation will somehow have to be backed up with empirical evidence scientists can falsify, otherwise you wax philosophical, which is okay in relation to a creator being having something to do with creating the Big Bang, but not in relation to the Big Bang always having existed and thus having no beginning.

If you want to assume that the universe has had no beginning then explain the Big Bang.

n/a

The theory of the BB thinks it is applicable.

Presently the Big Bang speaks to a beginning and thus, one cannot really assume there is no need to explain that. Presuming there is no need to explain that, is not the same as presuming that an eternal being who had no beginning, created the universe, as an explanation. See?

No, I don't see, since the assumption is the same.

No, you don't SEE because you do not understand yet that the assumption ISN'T the same. See?

I have not argued that it isn't. What I said was "there is nothing in the universe which 'just happens' - as we see clearly cause and effect, so there is no reason to claim that the universe came into effect, through no cause, as that is magical thinking."

And that's moot, since there is a cause - the Big Bang.

And this is part of your confusion. If the BB is eternal, then so is the rest of the universe in which case, there should be neither cause nor effect involved in the unfolding process, and indeed there should be no unfolding process, yet there most definitely IS.

Which is WHY the BB theory identifies the BB as 'the beginning of this universe'.

See?

Magical thinking is assuming the Big Bang happened without a cause.

The same magical thinking that assume God does not need a cause.

As can be seen I have being trying to show you where you are incorrect about this.
You are claiming it is okay to presume that the BB is eternal and so didn't actually 'happen' and is not the 'beginning' of the universe, because it is eternal.

This flies in the face of the science of the BB theory (as explained further back in this post).

The magical thinking re the BB is to claim that it requires no explanation as to WHY/HOW it began.

In regards to the assumption that it most likely began because of an eternal creator, is not magical thinking, as the explanation is reasonable enough, and sound for that.

I am not arguing that the Big Bang itself is not the cause of everything as effect in the universe being sourced to that event. I am arguing that this being the case, it stands to reason the Big Bang itself has to also have a cause. Ripple effects are like that.

The same way it stands to reason God had a creator. So tell me, who created God? Ripple effects are like that.

As I have continued to point out, you are conflating two things.

It is more sensible to understand that the universe had a beginning and that the BB is the evidence of that event.

In relation to the idea that it must have been created BY an eternal being, the being MUST be eternal otherwise there is the illogical contradiction of the argument of Infinite Regression, which implies that there must always be a creator for a creator when this is not at necessary or logical, as the better assumption is that there must be One creator who was not Itself created, and thus has to have always existed and has never not existed.

Philosophically the idea of an eternal creator rebuffs the argument of Infinite Regression.

See?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 19 by William]

As explained Bust Nak, the problem with this is that the Big Bang is essentially the event which the Theory of Evolution claims as evidence of the universe having a beginning, so to dismiss this by assuming the Big Bang is eternal and thus had no beginning is contrary to the Big Bang theory.

Good grief! The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang.


While the Big Bang was the beginning of this universe it is not necessarily the beginning of all existence. We have managed to trace back the history of the universe to within an incredibly small fraction of a second after the BB. What there was and what happened before is unknown. It is not unreasonable to suppose that there has always been something, but that it simply changes in form just as energy can be changed into different forms. Also, for all we know time is an artefact that is predicated on the existence of this universe. Eternity may be a meaningless concept in reality.