Well, no. The theistic variation of the 'puzzle' argument is that it all fits together perfectly as a device to produce us... which it doesn't. If the universe were created with the intent of producing us, it's an overly complex, over-engineered lemon. Most of it's not useable, and the processes are horribly inefficient for the stated goal.

By comparison, the naturalist version is that the universe is coherant, consistent, and fits together like a puzzle because it is subject to the same physical laws across the board. The difference is: The universe isn't coherant for a purpose, it's coherant because it was all being treated the same.

It's like legos vs my lower right pre-molar.

Legos fit together because they're designed to fit together.

The two pieces of my lower right pre-molar fit together because it's one thing, developed as one thing, and we're just examining it in pieces.

And, for the record, they only fit together because I got lucky and didn't swallow either one when the tooth got busted.

Hey, L0ather, welcome.

I reckon I probably shouldn't've used the word "puzzle." I was thinking in terms of the way that jigsaw pieces fit together. That is, if you cut one shape, it automatically fits the shape from which it was cut. It just can't help it, as the two are mathematically intertwined. This doesn't require design; it just requires mathematics (or, what mathematics fundamentally represents: relationships).

I think the main difference between a theist who sees the patterns as evidence of a creator, and an atheist who sees the patterns of evidence of mathematical relationships, is that the atheist rejects a creator because it is not part of the pattern, and is not necessary for the patterns to exist.

Take Conway's game of life. It is a couple of simple rules that results in complex forms and processes. The sum is much more than the whole of its parts. The same is true with fractals: simple rules result in complex, unexpected, and beautiful patterns. This is called emergence, the combination and interaction of simple processes which results in a very complex, stochastic process.

It's difficult to break an emergent process into its much simpler base processes, even though those processes are simple. The stochastic interaction of these simpler processes obscures the fundamental nature of the rules that give rise to the emergent process. Also, in many cases, the emergent pattern is so completely different from the underlying patterns, it's hard to figure out a way to isolate the underlying patterns.

Take a look at a gravity. If you start with the observation of two bodies, the equation for gravity pops right out. However, three bodies of more-or-less equal mass results in a chaotic mess, from which it would be almost impossible to figure out the laws of gravity. And this is with just one basic process of the universe.

Now, the main difference between us finding ourselves in the universe, and me finding myself in a strange room, is that the nature of the universe seems to be completely naturalistic. A rock is not a chair. Even a planet is not a chair. A chair was obviously designed and built with a purpose. If I were to stumble on a chair in the middle of a meadow, I would have to assume it was left there by someone who is now missing their chair. However, if I were to stumble on a large rock in the middle of a meadow, I would not consider it so out of place.

In nature, there is no chair. You may conclude that the universe was designed to specifically fit you; but, in the end, it's more likely that you were evolved to fit the universe. (Just as water is constantly amazed how the hole it fills exactly matches the form of a puddle.) There is no evidence of a designer, no marks from machining or carving or sculpting. So far, there has been nothing that is out of place within the universe.

Beyond that is observation. If I were to awake in a strange room tomorrow, it would not fit with my prior observations. I would know something was amiss the instant I found myself in a strange place. In nature, we may discover new things, but the old things still exist, are still comfortably there. The discovery of new things may explain outstanding mysteries, or it may create new mysteries, but it is always additive -- it adds to knowledge, rather than replacing knowledge.

A rock or a sun or a galaxy or you or me does not equate to something artificial, created. For all of those things, we have discovered some of the underlying mechanisms of the emergent properties. They are completely explicable in terms of our universe itself. The fact that application of the scientific method has prised this knowledge from the universe is an astounding testament to its efficacy. The fact that these processes fit together is not surprising, in the same way that two puzzle pieces fit together is not surprising. They are all part of a single cloth, that of the universe.

And still, no matter how you phrase it, you are attempting to replace one mystery (the origins of the universe) with an even greater mystery (the existence and ultimate origin of God). There is no logic that will erase this vast leap you must make to assume this vastly greater mystery.

It's like taking out a loan for $1,000,000,000.00 to repay a $1 loan from a friend.

Welcome!

Nigel already explained his quote himself so I'll just leave that alone. However, I really want to contest this analogy.

So where did the human come from? Has the human always existed or did it come from its parents? Why is it illogical to compare the creator and the creation? The entire base of the discussion is that nothing can create itself or be eternal. So, why does your God not follow these rules? Think about it. Did you actually propose an explanation for it or are you just asserting it repeatedly as if it's obvious or necessary? Of course, now we return to Occam's Razor again because the ideas of an infinite regress and nothing ever existing are also logically unsound. In the end, you simply have to lean towards the most likely scenario or take the most difficult position in philosophy, "I don't know." Your God is an intelligent and conscious being; yet, he is also supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent and transcend space and time. Thus, by probability alone, he infinitely unlikely exist.

 You have two choices:
(1) The laws of nature are ontologically dependent on the universe and could not exist without the universe.
OR (2) The laws of nature supersede the universe and can exist without the universe. 
If you assume (1), then you have a perfectly good explanation for why God does not follow these rules.   He does not follow these rules because these rules would not exist without the universe and the universe would not exist without him creating it.  If God had to follow the laws of the universe in order to create it, then it would follow that he actually existed within the universe and could not have created it. The theist position endorses (1).  And it really is the only sensible position you could hold.  Take any law of nature and you really could not separate it from the universe.   I love how atheists continually invoke William of Ockham.  He was actually a theist, though he never believed that the existence of God was something that could be proven scientifically.  "Despite his departures from orthodoxy and his conflict with the papacy, Ockham never renounced Catholicism. He steadfastly embraced fideism, the view that belief in God is a matter of faith alone. Although fideism was soon to become common among Protestant thinkers, it was not so common among medieval Catholics. At the beginning of the Middle Ages, Augustine proposed a proof of the existence of God and promoted the view that reason is faith seeking understanding. While the standard approach for any medieval philosopher would be to recognize a role for both faith and reason in religion, Ockham makes an uncompromising case for faith alone." http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ockham.htm#H6
 

What are you talking about?

I'm saying that God is defined as a being that is infinite and therefore uncreated.  So obviously that rule would not apply to God if one was to accept that definition of "God". 

I did not say that this proves that such a being exists.  But IF God exists, then God was not created.

Whether you believe the universe is infinite or that there exists an infinite being through which the universe comes, you are going to be putting forth claims without content either way.  So do not act like you are not making a leap of faith by assuming that the universe is infinite.  That IS a faith based proposition.

I choose to believe in God because that would account for my experience as an autonomous being who experiences morality and human relationships, which I experience as having a dimension that goes beyond mere laws of nature or selfish interest.

You obviously experience the world differently.  Someday, we'll have the answers but until then, I'd rather follow my religion than follow you guys.

Actually, I believe there is a definition of God that's coherent enough... yet you admitted that you have no definition of God and yet you deny the existence of God?  That makes absolutely no sense.  How could you deny the existence of something which you are not able to define yourself?  I wouldn't deny the existence of ubbagav's when I do not know what an "ubbagav" is.  I'm not going to tell you what "God" means just to expose your idiocy.

See, again you misunderstand my position, and instead of asking for clarification, you march on to whatever conclusion you please.

You're right: I can't define "God". The definitions I've experienced for gods strike me as improbable creatures at best. That's my position. It's very simple. Supernatural creatures probably don't exist. I therefore believe that they do not exist, just like you probably don't believe that Santa Claus exists. That's all.

There you go with the "idiot" word again like it makes a difference to the argument. Why not tell me how you define God, and I'll tell you why I don't think it exists? It's harmless. It's merely my opinion on the matter, so I can't see why you'd feel threatened enough to call me names.

If you can't define "God", then how can you deny that he exists?

Am I going too fast here? How can you deny that Santa Claus exists? See, the way you've chosen to phrase your question does something to your expected answer.

I suspect you attribute selflessness to a belief in God, from the phrasing of this.

This is fascinating, and sheds much light.

Fair enough. Myself, I choose the path of rationality, as I believe that is the way to true enlightenment. But that is your choice, and, as I said, is fair enough.

Okay. Good start.

Good questions.

Well, yes, since the laws of nature are immutable. Do you mean to say "law of the jungle" or something? Humans exhibit compassion and other cooperative traits, too. I'm not ignoring those. But they do so even in the absence of gods. 

... as do I.

That's where you're losing me, then. Not much really to support that. Disease, deformity, our current destruction of our habitat, things like that make us seem much more like a population of living creatures like any other.

An "intelligence" that drops the ball this often wouldn't be terribly intelligent.

Okay, but it still seems unlikely that your belief could actually have a foundation in reality. You're first believing that creatures that live outside of reality can exist (that's a tough one), and second that such a creature goes around creating universes for its pets. You've presented a definition of a God that I can confidently say probably doesn't exist. I'm not "denying" or anything, I'm just saying probably not.

That's why I asked you for a definition, which you provided as an intelligent creator of universes. Thanks for that, probably doesn't exist. Massively unlikely. I'm not denying the slight and infinitesimal possibility of such a creature's existence, I'm just saying I find it hard to believe.

But I don't think it is just a coincidence that we act freely and have a sense of right and wrong.  You obviously do.

Ah, the problem of evil.  Do you really want to debate me on that?  It's really simple.

Actually, this is a completely incorrect statement. We hold animals to a moral conduct: we put down dogs that bite, for instance. Also, recent research has shown that dogs have a sense of fairness, both in play and in feeding. In wolf packs, rogue wolves are killed by the pack for breaking pack protocol. The same type of behavior has been observed (though not significantly studied) in many other non-ape animals.

In the wild, apes behave in what we would call a "moral" manner. Those that break the "moral code" are punished.

So, no, humans are not special in our morality. We may have a language for it, and we may debate it, but it isn't different in kind from what we've observed in other animals.

You believe humans are special. From what I've seen (and what the evidence suggests), we're special only in one significant way: our ability to manipulate, process, and communicate abstract symbols and ideas.

Now, this ability has given us distinct advantages. Don't get me wrong: I'd be very surprised to see a tribe of chimps build a skyscraper or a bicycle. But the assumption that we are that far removed from other animals is a fallacy. We are animals. There are other animals that communicate. There are other animals that build and use tools. There are other animals that hold to a moral code, and those that break the moral code are punished. Other animals understand fairness.

Our greatest hubris isn't that we aspire to be god-like, as in the old Greek plays. Our greatest hubris is that we think we are somehow special, somehow removed from the natural world to which we belong.

We've got one trick: the ability to communicate sophisticated abstract ideas. Everything else we've accomplished is built solidly on that one specialisation.

We're animals that can talk.

Neither do I, we just have different explanations for that sense. I'd say it's practical for supporting a population of complex-brained creatures like us. Codified moral codes, that is. Compassion and cooperative behaviour are in our blood just as much as competition. But we have a much greater capacity to analyze our environment than other living creatures we've experienced. Chances are that developed over thousands of years of our most recent phase of evolution. I say "chances are", because that's a physically relevant explanation. I've excluded supernatural explanations because of my lack of experience with them. In fact, humanity's lack of experience with them. If there's a supernatural, it hasn't shown its face in the 400 years we've been doing scientific study. That's remarkable.

I should hope so, otherwise I'd be a sociopath. Sociopaths exist in the absence of gods, too.

It's not really the problem of evil. You can believe in evil only if you believe that human behaviours can be "evil" or "good", when they are simply human behaviours. Not to say some aren't less practical or emotionally and physically harmful than others, but to declare behaviours as either ends of a scale is to impose an absolute where there is none.

So was Newton. All that means is that human beings, no matter how smart, can be wrong, and tend to cling to comforting beliefs. Or should we be worshipping Zeus, because Pythagoras was right about triangles, and Aristotle hit on the concept of the Atom early on? (Of course, Ari was totally off in what an atom IS, but he had the idea first!)

*aaaahhhh*

Since God is a supernatural imaginary being, it's traits are only whatever the proponents decide for its traits to be. Why would I define God?, when I'm the one refuting the proponents' definitions of it. Would argue against my beliefs by defining them? No, that's retarded. You don't know what my beliefs. I have to define what my beliefs are. 

God. Doesn't. Mean. Anything!!!

Or, at the very least, it means a completely different thing to every single person. 

Our tentativeness in position isn't because we're too illiterate to figure out the meaning of God. For a pastafarian, God is spaghetti. For a pantheist, God is everything. For a kid, God is Santa Clause. For a Scientologist, God is Hubbard. Understand?

 

Except that our sense of 'right' and 'wrong' isn't at all removed from the same social justice we see in apes. And as I've said, it's starting to look a lot like the concept of free will is an illusion.

Love to. First you'll need to define this 'evil', though.

LOL, and you believe that Ockham's Razor supports your position?

 

And that's totally valid, man. But it also means that you can't go around saying 'I love how all these atheists invoke a principle named after a theist!' and expect it to hold any water. Sorry.

No, I believe the data supports that position:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision

http://scienceweek.com/2004/sa040813-1.htm

http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2008/04/libet-redux-free-will-takes-another.html

Just from a quick-and-dirty google search. You see, Occam's Razor is about explanations being dependant on the data, and the data would seem to indicate that position. Thus, Occam's Razor isn't a consideration here beyond 'if the evidence points toward decisions being made before we're aware of them, then don't concoct a more complicated explanation just because you don't like the implications about free will'.

 

 Ugh, for a philosophy major, you sure commit a lot of logical fallacies. 

Um, so.........it wasn't an ad hominem? 

 

That's ok.  I'm sure he'll make a great fast-food employee.

The "Laws of Physics" are a description of the regularity of the workings of the universe. They do not depend necessarily on the existence of the universe, although they may only be a special case of broader principles which apply in a more general context beyond our specific 'Universe'.

For anything to exist coherently, especially something structured enough to have an attribute such as "intelligence", so it also must have its own "laws" describing that regularity - without such regularity you can only have pure chaos, by definition. So any such entity is as much subject to pre-existing principles as we are. Such regularity, some set of "Laws", is a pre-requisite for the existence of intelligence, just as much as with our Universe.

Whatever problems we may have with the Universe coming into existence, "intelligence" is not a necessary prerequisite. Indeed, everything we know from our own investigations is that "intelligence" is an emergent process, it is incoherent as something removed from a substrate and an environment, so it can only exist within its own meta-universe, which intrinsically raises exactly the same problems of origin that our "Universe" implies.

The only rational option for the ultimate origins of our Universe, or a 'God', for that matter, is that of a primal, elementary, spontaneous 'burp', possibly analogous to the Big Bang singularity, or a Planck scale blob of potentiality.

"Intelligence" is neither necessary nor sufficient as a 'cause' of existence.

 

Which is a shame. He imploded long before I thought he would. I guess the pressure of actually having to think (not that he did, much) finally got to him.