- What is the difference between a rational universe and a designed universe?
2 Likes
Two totally different kinds of faith.
Hard to say since we only have this universe to work with and it appears to be rationally designed.
1 Like
- Unless the universe is rational and not designed.
- Bard says:
- The terms “rational universe” and “designed universe” are often used interchangeably, but there is a subtle difference between the two.
- A rational universe is one that is governed by laws of logic and reason. The laws of physics, for example, are rational in the sense that they are consistent and predictable. A designed universe is one that has been created by a conscious being with a purpose in mind. This being could be God, or it could be some other kind of intelligent entity.
- The key difference between a rational universe and a designed universe is the presence of purpose. A rational universe may be consistent and orderly, but it does not necessarily have any purpose. A designed universe, on the other hand, is created with a specific purpose in mind. This purpose may be to provide a home for life, to allow for the development of intelligence, or to achieve some other goal.
- There is no scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a designed universe. However, some people believe that the order and complexity of the universe are evidence of a designer. They argue that the laws of physics are too precise and the universe is too finely tuned for life to have arisen by chance.
- Others believe that the universe is simply a product of natural processes. They argue that the laws of physics are simply the result of random fluctuations, and that the universe is simply a vast and complex system that has evolved over time.
- The debate over whether the universe is rational or designed is likely to continue for many years to come. There is no easy answer, and the evidence is open to interpretation. Ultimately, each individual must decide for themselves what they believe.
1 Like
the first organism came about by the chemical evolution of cyclical chemical processes, also known as pre-biotic evolution.
Incorrect. There are a great number of things in the world which come about neither by chance nor by design. And most things are a mixture of many different causes (and mostly design isn’t even one of them): some causes are external and some causes internal, some by chance and some by intention, and some by choice or self-organization.
If there is no chance, then all that’s left is an evil god who tortures children.
Correct.
Science isn’t about proof. It is about what is reasonable to believe given the evidence.
Correct. They have a faith that the evidence doesn’t lie – that there are no magical demons out there arranging the evidence to deceive us. But that is a reasonable faith to have – giving us a much more meaningful life than attributing everything to magical demons.
Incorrect. They just know the difference between science and subjective beliefs which are not based on the methods of science.
It is not. All knowledge and use of reason requires faith. But there is reasonable faith which follows the evidence and blind faith which ignores the evidence.
Well I have seen that scripture often means less to you than it does to me.
Incorrect.
They can also test their hypotheses and see if the evidence agrees.
All those who claim to speak for God can do is nothing but endless rhetoric like a lawyer or car salesman.
The genetic code is a vast library we have just begun to learn how to read. Already it has answered many difficult question and I think it will answer many questions like this as well. Claiming it cannot answer such question is a fool’s bet like so many other god-of-the-gaps arguments.
2 Likes
I will note from the perspective of some computer programming classes that “purpose” can be as broad as “Let’s see what this will do!” or could include “At some point this is going to produce a unique set of interactions that we’ll call ‘life’ – watch for it!”
Those tend to be the result of system design as opposed to unit design. It’s plain that given the initial constants and such that there would be elements we call hydrogen and oxygen and that the two would interact to make a compound we call water and that its solid form would be less dense than its liquid form; what isn’t as plain is that there would be self-reproducing sets of chemicals of the sort we call life.
Or as my first college biology professor noted, “We have not proven that there are not fairies running the garden, we have only proven that if they are there they are very good at following rules”.
This is something that drives me up a wall: biologists can look at a set of fossils and make a hypothesis that “If these are related by descent, then we should find an organism that looks like such-and-such”, and people will deny that this is a matter of making a prediction. That it is a prediction about the past makes it no less a test of the science than if it were a prediction about the future.
1 Like
Sounds as ambiguous as “designed”; so the “Designer” is ambiguous; “design” is ambiguous; and “purpose” is ambiguous. In other words, it seems, Bard is a less than satisfactory resource on the matter.
I don’t know who or what Bard is. I’ll just refer you back to the opening post: to those students, “design” was not at all ambiguous, though just who the Designer was required further investigation.
As an example, what would one expect as intermediate between Pelycidion matthewsi (~3.8-3.2 MYA) which had a shell smooth other than growth lines, was relatively narrow, and had a noticeably detached aperture; and the recent Pelycidion megalomastoma which has a subsutural groove, is a bit broader, and has only a very weakly detached aperture? It would be something with a weak subsutural groove, intermediate width, and a weakly detached aperture. As it turns out, the range of variation in those characters of the 2.4-2.2 MYA ones overlaps with the ~3.2 MYA ones and with the 2.0-1.8 MYA ones, and the range of variation of the 2.0-1.8 MYA ones overlaps with the recent ones.
Here’s one of the ~1.9 MYA ones (it’s an adult, and ~1.7 mm):
2 Likes
Firstly, I’ve encountered many an atheist who states that there is no God (or gods). Check out any atheist website and you’ll find plenty of them.
Secondly, athesits don’t believe in God because they don’t want to believe in God … they simply don’t want God to exist.
Atheists say there is no convincing evidence of God, but they lie …
“Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been CLEARLY PERCEIVED in the things that have been made. So they are WITHOUT EXCUSE” -Romans 1:20.
The evidence is there but atheists refuse to acknowledge that it exists because they don’t want God to exist.
This is how it works: If you want to believe in God, you’ll find a way. If you don’t want to believe in God, you’ll find a way.
Some people resist finding God, but he finds them anyway.
Have you ever heard of “The Hound of Heaven”? And I don’t think Phil Yancey wanted to find him. Neither did Maggie, really. The only thing she knew for sure was that she needed help!
2 Likes
There are atheists who want God to exist, but intellectually are convinced otherwise.
2 Likes
Like I said, if you want to believe in God, you’ll find a way.
Atheists, on the other hand, find a way to not believe in God, because that is their heart’s desire. As Romans 1:20 says, they are “they are without excuse” … in other words, an intellectual excuse is no excuse at all.
Atheists also deny the reality of miracles … because the desire of their hearts is wilfully deny any evidence of God’s existence.
“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” (Psalm 14:1)
God wants to “find” everyone and so offers his grace to everyone. It is by grace we receive faith, but only for those who choose to accept that grace.
Those poor souls who are eternally determined to reject God will not receive faith no matter how much grace God sends them.
And there are those who will reject God even if they do believe he exists … just as Lucifer and the other rebel angels did.
??? I don’t see what this has to do with what I said. The woman wanted to believe in God and in the end, she did.
He wants to find his lost sheep and offers his grace to all, but not all are his lost sheep.
For I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many people in this city.
Acts 18:10
That doesn’t say “l will have”, it says “I have”.
I don’t expect that you do.
What I meant was, I don’t know of any natural mechanism that can produce a living organism from inanimate matter.
Really? Which scientist has managed to produce a viable organism from inanimate matter? I didn’t hear about that miraculous feat.
Are you sure you haven’t been watching too many science-fiction movies?
Would your faith be devastated if life was developed in the lab? It needn’t be. God is sovereign, but his providential interventions are inscrutable and undetectable, except in the meanings of the results. Did he necessarily ‘poof’ life into existence miraculously?
1 Like
News Flash: Testing an hypothesis by seeing if the evidence agrees is how a theory is formed … which is what I said: All science can do is theorise about (alleged) ancient evolutionary history.
Wait … are you trying to equate a theory with a fact? A theory is not a fact - a theory attempts to explain why facts (observations) exist … and all theories can be wrong.