Argument by design.

[Getchasome]

"Where did it all come from? How can you explain the complex order of the universe? I can't believe the beauty of nature just happened by accident. Design requires a designer."

This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to "explain" anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the "natural universe" is simply to demand a "higher universe."

The universe is "all there is." It is not a thing. A god would certainly be a part of "all there is," and if the universe requires an explanation, then god requires a god, ad infinitum.

The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: Who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe.

There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics. The perceived design in nature is not necessarily intelligent. Life is the result of the mindless "design" of natural selection. Order in the cosmos comes from the "design" of natural regularity. There is no need for a higher explanation.

The design argument is based on ignorance, not facts. Failure to solve a natural riddle does not mean there is no answer. For millennia humans have created mythical answers to "mysteries" such as thunder and fertility. But the more we learn, the fewer gods we need. God belief is just answering a mystery with a mystery, and therefore answers nothing.

[mdhunter]

1. Yeah, then why is Angelina Jolie designed so well?

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

No, really, good post. The second paragraph struck me as most interesting.

[ChairOne]

2. Even Darwin knew all of this....

It's really just a testament to how stupid Americans are...

The you-don't-get-something-greater-from-something-lesser argument has been around for about a jillion years, and Darwin answered it decisively.

It has since been re-answered about a jillion times mathematically and otherwise.

It is only the ignorance of the American public that keeps this meme going...

Time+Order = Design - The basis of Darwin's answer to the how-do-you-get-better-stuff-from-worse-stuff challenge. And it works. All the rest is just detail.

Go read. Don't post. Read. It takes more time than posting, but is totally worth it. Read Darwin. Read Gould. Read a bunch of others. They're big books. Written by experts. That's a good thing.

[quaker bill]

3. Just for fun, here is a couple of ideas to bat about

From my basic understanding of unified theory, nothing could "pre-date" the existence of the universe. It is widely held that space and time came into existence at the moment of the big bang. With this concept firmly in place, nothing came "before" this moment because concepts of time are not relevant there. Perpetuity and the instant are one and the same in this "absolute elsewhere". There simply is no "ad-infinitum" as time is absolutely finite in this direction down the timeline. The question of eternity is simply not relevant.

You are correct, there is no definitive reason to believe that life, as it exists, required a designer. However, this is by no means proof that a designer was not involved, only that one was not absolutely necessary to arrive at this result. I agree that no designer is absolutely necessary to explain anything about observable reality.

Evolution is a simple set of mathematical rules, that act on raw material (life), in the context of stochastic events. It has no intended outcome and potentially there are an infinite number of plausible solutions to these equations over time. Evolution does not progress, it simply allows life to adapt to changing circumstances. The very concept of "progress" implies steps toward a final goal. Since there is no "goal" evolution can and has run in any and every direction, to include down some blind alleys from which there was no return.

The concept of nature or the universe being "orderly" is flatly mistaken. A fundamental concept of thermodynamics is that in all transactions entropy (disorder) increases. The fact that there are some observable laws around which this dance with disorder occurs should never be confused with orderliness.

Now, understanding that the universe is a truly random occurrence, and evolution is an absolutely unbaised and unintentional set of mathematic equations operating on random mutations that respond to random events which change edaphic conditions in random and unpredictable manners (like large space rocks), what are the odds that these specific results are obtained? Virtually nill.

I would bet that if you ran the math carefully enough, you could all but prove that we do not exist.

To throw one more monkey wrench into the works, try this. If god created the universe, all of it's physical laws, nature, and all observable natural phenomena exactly as they are and have been, why would any of the acts of such a god seem at all "un-natural"? Further, if time did not exist prior to the "act of god" to create the universe, then how could something come "before" god?

I do love a good thought puzzle.