Evidence for Design?

[plwk]

[wisdom]

1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
2. The directiveness of living organisms.
3. The progressive nature of development.
4. The information system contained in the DNA code.
5. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.
6. The development of the most complex phenomenon in the universe: the human brain.
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

What are your views?

1. Imponderable
2. All living beings want to be free from suffering
3. Progress is an illusion
4. Dualistic thinking gives rise to systems of information
5. The odds are not so overwhelming, the universe is abundant with life and slowly science is coming to grips with this as a mathematically probable statement. This doesn't disprove design, it actually would be an argument for it. Making life so feeble and rare would be inefficient, a poorly written program.
6. On this planet. The complexity of the phenomena is the mind.
7. Some people are rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings, a great majority are not all or any of these things. The capacity for unselfish love is greatly eclipsed by our capacity for ignorance, delusion and selfishness.

[gregkavarnos]

Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the progressive development and existence of rational, autonomous, moral beings who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.

Scientific evidence for design consists of:

1. The laws of nature which are necessary for life and a rational existence.
2. The directiveness of living organisms.
3. The progressive nature of development.
4. The information system contained in the DNA code.
5. The survival of life despite overwhelming odds.
6. The development of the most complex phenomenon in the universe: the human brain.
7. The existence of rational, autonomous, moral and responsible beings with a capacity for unselfish love.

What are your views?

Two "answers" come to mind:
1. In the darkness you see a coil of rope and call it a snake.
2 Shoot the designer, quickly!

[Beatzen]

Your body "knows" how to grow its bones, but can this really be called intelligence? Here is where the beauty of Tao comes into view. The universe may indeed have it's source in a greater intelligence, but is that intelligence self-conscious is an entirely different question.

[Astus]

An unconscious intelligence? That is a bit absurd.
Taoist or any other mono-causal system is refuted by dependent origination.

[AdmiralJim]

[quote]Design means to draw or create deliberately according to some plan -- but instead the universe arose because the blind force of the collective actions of ignorant sentient beings [from a previous universe[/quote
where did these previous beings come from? It just seems to conflate the problem unless their is a finite amount of beings with their own unique karma and how could beings arisen in the first place because there would be no 'initial' karma

[David N. Snyder]

where did these previous beings come from? It just seems to conflate the problem unless their is a finite amount of beings with their own unique karma and how could beings arisen in the first place because there would be no 'initial' karma

1/0 (one divided by zero) is an error. You can't get something from nothing, be it a first-beginning or a god.

"no first beginning is discernible" Buddha

[AdmiralJim]

My point is that the universe could not have arisen because of beings as previously stated as I think it more likely life originated later. the problem is not one of the universe orgins but the origins of life because as the number of sentient beings increases where does their karma come from, as you state it can't come from nothing, as surely inorganic atoms cannot have 'karma'.

[Malcolm]

Design means to draw or create deliberately according to some plan -- but instead the universe arose because the blind force of the collective actions of ignorant sentient beings [from a previous universe[/quote
where did these previous beings come from?

The previous universe.

[AdmiralJim]

where did these previous beings from the previous universe come from? it just goes around in circles and would only work if there were a finite amount of beings

[Malcolm]

where did these previous beings from the previous universe come from? it just goes around in circles and would only work if there were a finite amount of beings

From the universe prior to that ad infinitum. The logic of dependent origination does not permit of any sort of beginnings whatsoever. No first causes, no first moment, no first universe, etc. There are an infinite number of sentient beings who also have no beginning.

[AdmiralJim]

Ok I understand now, but it raises the question what are we seeking liberation from and how does a Bodhisattva save all sentinet beings

[Indrajala]

Ok I understand now, but it raises the question what are we seeking liberation from and how does a Bodhisattva save all sentinet beings

We seek liberation from suffering.

A bodhisattva does not conceive of sentient beings to liberate and thus liberates them all.

[gregkavarnos]

1/0 (one divided by zero) is an error. You can't get something from nothing, be it a first-beginning or a god.

1 divided by zero (mathematically) gives infinity actually!

[Malcolm]

Ok I understand now, but it raises the question what are we seeking liberation from and how does a Bodhisattva save all sentinet beings

We are seeking liberation from beginningless samsara; and bodhisattvas do not save all sentient beings, they merely wish to do so.

[Mr. G]

Split Topic: Understanding the Basis

[Adumbra]

AdmiralJim wrote: where did these previous beings come from? It just seems to conflate the problem unless their is a finite amount of beings with their own unique karma and how could beings arisen in the first place because there would be no 'initial' karma

There can be no causation without time. If space/time did have a beginning (as many astrophysicists now speculate) then the question of what initially caused it is meaningless. In essence, the myth of the big bang has replaced God as the causless cause, the unmoved mover. Though I have always favored the perpetual state model myself, the evidence for the big bang theory has been mounting for quite a while. If it is true, then scientists can no longer criticize theism with the but-who-made-God argument without opening themselves up to the same question. Now it's really just a matter of believing in an intelligent first cause, versus an unintelligent one; and even with all the obvious flaws in our biology, I'm personally placing my bet on intelligence. There is really no strong refutation of theism once you trade in the idea of a good and perfect creator for one who is, at best, amoral and capable of error such as the demiurgos of Plato's conception. Of course, whether or not such a being is worthy of our worship is another question.

[catmoon]

The only reason that the Big Bang theory points back to a mathematical singularity is that there are shortcomings in the mathematics. The math simply does not apply in the first tiny fraction of a second of the universe. Presumably, no mathematical singularity actually existed, as quantum uncertainty would smear things out. If the "origin" point had finite size, then I see no reason not to assume that time can be traced back farther.

Basically I'm saying that the singularity is not a point, but a time when the universe was at minimum size.

[Sherab]

"Scientists propose that clocks measure the numerical order of material change in space, where space is a fundamental entity; time itself is not a fundamental physical entity."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-sci ... oposethat/

"In general, asking what happened before the Big Bang is not really considered a science question. According to Big Bang theory, time did not even exist before this point roughly 13.7 billion years ago. But now, Oxford University physicist Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan from the Yerevan Physics Institute in Armenia have found an effect in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) that allows them to "see through" the Big Bang into what came before."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-sci ... e-big.html

[gregkavarnos]

There is really no strong refutation of theism once you trade in the idea of a good and perfect creator for one who is, at best, amoral and capable of error such as the demiurgos of Plato's conception.

Of course there is, Dependent Origination, yah know???

"In general, asking what happened before the Big Bang is not really considered a science question. According to Big Bang theory, time did not even exist before this point roughly 13.7 billion years ago. But now, Oxford University physicist Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan from the Yerevan Physics Institute in Armenia have found an effect in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) that allows them to "see through" the Big Bang into what came before."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-sci ... e-big.html

Great so now the theologists... errrrmmmm... scientists that is, have discovered what existed before the creation of existence! The creator of the creator of creation!

That's just stupid!