Evidence for Design?

[cog]

A theistic atheist computer geek. Great! Now we are definitely on track!

To imagine how could it be conceivable that something exists does not means believing in that thing.

For example: I don't believe in unicorns, but I can conceive that unicorns can exist in a planet of Alpha-Centauri.

Moreover, I described an intelligent creator of this universe, not an uncreated God that always existed.

[gregkavarnos]

To imagine how could it be conceivable that something exists does not means believing in that thing.
For example: I don't believe in unicorns, but I can conceive that unicorns can exist in a planet of Alpha-Centauri...

Why waste your time conceiving of the improbable/impossible (like what colour are chicken lips) when you can rely on Dharma (Truth): the Dependent Origination of phenomenal reality?

Moreover, I described an intelligent creator of this universe, not an uncreated God that always existed.

In order for the intelligent creator to create the universe then they would have to exist before the creation of the universe, ie they would have to be uncreated.

[Astus]

There are many examples of unconscious intelligence. Take the cells of your body and the way they naturally intuit life-sustaining action.

The cells are not conscious of themselves, yet they "know" - similarly, a Buddha does not consciously think "I have attained enlightenment".

You call a biological function intelligence. In that sense, everything has intelligence as far as they have some function, and because whatever exists has a function, everything has intelligence. That makes the word "intelligence" pretty meaningless.

If the Buddha doesn't know that he is a perfectly enlightened being - although according to the scriptures he actually says he is one several times - he would be simply stupid and not enlightened.

[cog]

Why waste your time conceiving of the improbable/impossible (like what colour are chicken lips) when you can rely on Dharma (Truth): the Dependent Origination of phenomenal reality?

So the discussion is over. Because we cannot speculate about intelligent design without talking about improbable things.

In order for the intelligent creator to create the universe then they would have to exist before the creation of the universe, ie they would have to be uncreated.

No, if we consider a multiverse scenario. That thing would have to exist before our universe, but it could have been born in another universe.

[steveb1]

Ummm... two remarks:

1. I don't agree with N. DeGrasse Tyson on most of his ufo/paranormal/religious pronouncements. If he thinks Creationism and ID are "stupid", he's most likely duplicating the late Carl Sagan on such matters, which is not a good thing. They both venture miles beyond their fields of expertise, and like Dawkins, Dennet, and others, misrepresent much of religion and thereby commit embarrassing gaffes. But having indulged in these negatives, I would like to elaborate:

2. From a strictly theistic and conservative Christian POV, yes: Creationism and ID ARE stupid

I say this because, contrary to Creationist/ID'ers' insistence that proven ID, in turn, would prove God's existence, it doesn't.
It would only prove a creator's or a designer's existence. And the creator(s) or designer(s) may not be, and probably are not (based on the statements of the divine union mystical literature) "the real" God.

Moreover - and this in my opinion is the death knell for Creationism - if a creator/designer is proven to exist, this would not be good news.

The universe is samsara. Buddha judged it to be so terrible that he provided means by which one never has to be reborn into it.
The universe is samsara, whether it is, as Creationists think, the artifact of a creating deity ... or, as Buddhism claims, it is merely heaps of mindless skandhas arising from dependent origination. In either case, "creation" is fraught with egoism, insatiable desire, suffering, and death.

Therefore, discovering a creator of samsara would not be good news. On the contrary, it would be tantamount to saying, "We have found the Creator, and the Creator is mean, hostile, inept, indifferent, and a host of other undesirable qualities".

Worse, on christening this Creator as the Ultimate God and Ground of Being, they would really be saying that God is a jerk.

There may or may not be evidence for design. I doubt it. But if there is evidence of design, and it points directly to a designer or a team of designers, we as suffering beings will simply gain another cause of samsara. Granted, it would be an ultimate cause of samsara, but nonetheless, still a cause of suffering.

So my comment is: "Intelligent Design? A Creator? Oh, that's just great - now we know that there is a cosmic 'Housebuilder', who just as bad as the individual 'Housebuilder' of the human ego. Don't tout this as good news, because ... it isn't.

[gregkavarnos]

Why waste your time conceiving of the improbable/impossible (like what colour are chicken lips) when you can rely on Dharma (Truth): the Dependent Origination of phenomenal reality?

So the discussion is over. Because we cannot speculate about intelligent design without talking about improbable things.

In order for the intelligent creator to create the universe then they would have to exist before the creation of the universe, ie they would have to be uncreated.

No, if we consider a multiverse scenario. That thing would have to exist before our universe, but it could have been born in another universe.

Dude, if you want to sit around discussing and arguing about the number of fingers on an extra-universal computer geek samsaric designer that is beyond the physical and temporal creation of our phenomenal reality, then go for it! I, personally, am outta here!

[ghost01]

I think equating universal intelligence with our concept of what intelligence is, is a mistake.

We are only capable of relating to things within our sphere of understanding, for example as a programmer I might imagine the universe runs on laws of sorts similar to a programming language.

DNA contains data of sorts, which is not unlike a programming language, and when 'compiled', produce a set of results. I can really only ask one question, what are the set of rules which govern this code? (I'm using code/laws interchangeably)

These questions tend to keep leading us down, down, down.. into smaller segments of the universe: molecules, atoms, quarks, particles, waves etc.

At this level, we begin to have a greater understanding of the underlying laws which allow for the creation of more complex structures. Not dissimilar to how high level programming languages rely on lower level ones for operations.

Binary->Assembly->C->Java/C#/PHP/Perl etc.

The thing is, the further down we explore into the fabric of the universe, we find that physical laws do not obey any logic even close to resembling what we are used to. (Quantum level), yet these are the building blocks from which all of this is possible. I imagine this trend will continue for a very long time.. we think we have an amazing understanding of things, but I'm sure so did the thinkers of all previous generations.

To me this makes attempting to theorize about a 'creator', or the beginning of all things absurd. You are applying logic from a realm of understanding which has no meaning, or bearing on the most fundamental laws of the universe, the underlying mechanisms.

For example, when we look at an apple, we can say that it is red/green, we can describe it's shape, smell, texture etc, but what are we actually describing? The apple is a concept, which signifies it's underlying parts and attributes, all the way down to it's most basic structures.

So who and what is this 'creator' ? Perhaps a unified understanding of the universe from it's most basic forms and laws, ascending ever higher into more complex systems and laws, will produce a tangible concept for us to grasp..

until then...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAjRerTmhwM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl6fpGOL ... re=related

[cog]

So who and what is this 'creator' ? Perhaps a unified understanding of the universe from it's most basic forms and laws, ascending ever higher into more complex systems and laws, will produce a tangible concept for us to grasp..

I think even if we get to know the innermost mechanisms of the universe (e. g. superstrings or supermembranes), it will not tell us anything about whether there is or not a creator of this universe.