Debate Potholes...

I disagree that you can simply consider it a case of alternative explanations. Because our methods of investigating the phenomenon are limited, our explanations, for that reason, should also be limited; that is, we should impose limitations on the breadth of our explanation, so that it is a definable cause of a specific effect. Proposing an intelligence behind it all is unlimited, it explains everything without actually explaining anything.

When we wish to explain an effect we form a theory that is sufficiently matched to that effect. Science progresses one step at a time. Those who are trying to work on the "theory of everything" -- string theories -- know how difficult it is to find a single explanation for "all known effects." Saying an intelligence is behind it all doesn't actually explain anything. The intelligence must necessarily be exceedingly complex, replete with qualities, features, attributes, and powers, none of which we can conceivably describe or test. And it doesn't apply to any single "effect," or even a set of related "effects." The claim of intelligence is supposed to explain everything.

Additionally, the argument from design is very old. It began before Darwin, when theological scientists looked at the varieties of life and claimed that God must have designed each "kind" individually because they all look so "designed." We know now that Natural Selection produces apparent design automatically. This idea that God designed various "kinds" explains nothing, whereas Natural Selection explains speciation and the apparent design in life forms in entirely explainable and understandable terms.

Additionally, the argument from design keeps getting pushed back until we get to the Big Bang. There is no room any longer for God to have uniquely designed specific things "within" the universe, but at the point of its creation the question remains, what were the boundary conditions? Did they have to be one specific way, or could they have been chaotic? Is it really possible for the universe to simply spring into being from nothing, the way virtual particles come from nowhere? And if it's possible for one universe to do that, why shouldn't there be others? And if there are others, are they all different?

Quite right, it isn't pertinent to the scientific process. Unless someone stumbles upon a real, unmistakable message implanted in the laws of physics, similar to Carl Sagan's idea of the circle encoded in the number Pi in his book, "Contact." (But I would question even that.)

This is the only domain in which science deals.

Where did we come from is not necessarily outside of the domain. What is its purpose is, or rather, has no meaning with respect to what can be known. So why ask it?

We have a billion more years of good sunlight on earth. The universe may have 50 or 100 billion more useful years. Then comes the long, long night. The last remaining black holes will be evaporating in 10 to the 600 years. There is nothing we know of that can give you an idea of how big that number is. What is its purpose? If it has a purpose at all it is simply to exist. Nothing more can be said than that.

This would make it a matter of personal taste or opinion, and therefore not science. I said it was a misapplication of the scientific process because there are some wealthy groups trying to get this stuff taught in high school science classes, and they are trying to corrupt the teaching of evolution as a validated fact. This is where it is a misapplication. It should not be done in this context. It is not a matter of needing to prove it; it doesn't belong in science because it is a misapplication of the scientific process (a distortion or perversion of the process).


The proposal that an intelligence is behind the universe is not rational: the question does not logically follow from simply observing effects in the universe: there are no effects for which a clearly defined cause is being proposed. The word "intelligence" could be replaced by almost any word of your choosing without changing the irrationality of the proposal. The same "every effect in the universe" would be explained to the same degree by the new "fantasy attribute-laden dohicky word." The word "intelligence" carries no meaning in this context. Therefore, it cannot be used.

The word "intelligence" can be used in reference to living organisms which have brains. There are varying degrees of this kind of intelligence. It is the only intelligence we know of. It is the only intelligence we are able to refer to. It can be examined, investigated, experimented upon, quantified, qualified, measured, labeled, defined. It can be, practically speaking, clearly understood.

Your use of the word "intelligence" as the cause of the universe cannot be understood. Nothing can be known about it. It cannot be tested, observed, measured, experimented upon, or defined. It is meaningless to refer to it.

Could it be that your liking of this intelligence idea relates, if subconsciously, to your wish to encapsulate a definable role or purpose for yourself and humanity? or for life in general? But like the universe, life has no purpose, except to exist. Life is like a thin fungus or mold that sometimes infects planets and coats their sufaces with an almost invisible tarnished sheen. It doesn't seem to be all that important in the scheme of the universe overall. Galaxies, and empty space itself, seem to the be real players in the game. But that, too, is just a perception.



But your only reason for asking the question of whether god exists comes from this same Bible (an argument from authority, which has very little strength). If it were not for the existence of the Bible and all the other religions, you would not be asking the question. The question you should be asking is, "why should we hold on to such an idea?"

Now, if you want to form a rational religion, your job is to figure out what can be figured out rationally, without referring to the Bible, and correlating this with those things that are in the Bible, keeping those, and discarding the rest (or at least teaching that those other things stem from irrational, unsupported thinking and do not represent an accurate portrait of humanity or reality.) But my question would be, why not just go straight for the rationality and dispense with the religion altogether? Unless you want to help others within the religion to learn to think rationally. This, actually, wouldn't be a bad thing at all.