Much of the world seems to be heading towards one of two different visions of G-d. The first is the uninvolved Creator, Who kicked things off and then let the Universe developed unguided (though note that Flew's G-d, who created the first DNA, did interfere after Creation). The second is a quasi-Islamic G-d who reCreates the world every instant, so that what we experience as reality is more like a film, with the seperate frames going by so fast we don't notice.

Both of these conceptions are driven by the same fact: the lack of overt miracles in our prosaic, scientific age. Which brings us to the same old point: either G-d chooses to make His works manifest in the world, or not. I believe that the answer is "not", and thus I cannot sidestep the question of faith by relying on science, logic or observation.

Also, as we only have one Universe to play with, science has nothing to say about Creation.

Aren't these two points:

"either G-d chooses to make His works manifest in the world, or not. I believe that the answer is "not", and thus I cannot sidestep the question of faith by relying on science, logic or observation.

Also, as we only have one Universe to play with, science has nothing to say about Creation."

somewhat self-contradictory? Is not Creation a manifestation in and of itself?

David:

I'm not sure there's a meaningful difference between those two options when we're talking about an omniscient, omnipresent Creator from the perspective of humans with a necessarily limited understanding of physical reality.

OJ: Yes. Those are somewhat contradictory statements. I contain multitudes. And yet, whether existence is a manifestation of G-d is the ultimate question. No description of existence, no matter how detailed or scientific, can answer that question. Only faith can.

Mike: Sure. Here is reality, or at least that part of reality that we can perceive. All useful descriptions of reality are going to resemble each other.

Then is not "not" identical to "is"?

What is the difference between deist and atheist?

Spelling.

Is not Creation a manifestation in and of itself?

The way in which a question is posed reveals a great deal. More accurately, and less pejoratively, the question should read:

Is not existence a manifestation in and of itself?

By declining to presume the answer in the phrasing of the question, the impossibility of an answer becomes readily apparent.

Jeff:

Except that you've presumed both existence and the questioner.

OJ: Not without the Juddian Heresy.

Flew's argument rests on the appeal from complexity. I see two errors in this argument, more exactly two erroneous assumptions upon which this argument rests:

1. The assumption that human creations are more complex than natural creations. In general, nothing that humans have, or probably will, create are as complex as natural systems such as biological organisms. So, if the only form of intelligent life that we know creates artifacts that are less complex than the non-intelligent, material processes underlying the Universe, then you can't use intelligence as a required agency for complexity - if anything, it retards complexity. Purposeful design sets limits on the outcomes of the creation process. Specific design goals dictate simplicity more often than complexity. Intelligence is a simplifying mechanism,it works at the level of abstractions.

2. This is the converse of 1, the assumption that blind, non-conscious, non-intelligent processes cannot produce complexity. The scientific paradigm shift associated with Chaos & Complexity Theory has demonstrated that simple, recursive algorithmic processes can result in artifacts of astounding complexity. Unlike with intelligence, non-purposeful processes do not limit themselves by design goals, they run unhindered. This is the way to astounding complexity.

And don't you think the same thinking will make the honest pro-life?

Robert:

Except that we can Create the Universe.

David:

Not as a theological point, but as a rational one.

OJ
What are you talking about???????

Flew is a preacher's kid?? PK's are always the unstable sort.

Atheist at 15 and now 81. Man talking about sowing wild oats. Kinda over did.

For purposes of argument, we have to assume that our existence is not, ipso facto, proof of G-d's existence.

At the point where you "assume" for the sake of argument what remains of reason?

Robert D:
OK, I'll play. Let us presume (with apologies to Orrin) that "Chaos & Complexity Theory has demonstrated that simple, recursive algorithmic processes can result in artifacts of astounding complexity". Humans are capable of designing not only simple, but also complex recursive algorithms, and can even conceive of the entire algorithmic space, unconstrained by any physical limitations. Yet you assert "a fortiori" that humans are incapable of complex design.

I find it faintly amusing that the road from strict atheism to a grudging admissiom of a remote and uncaring deity that has a vague role in biological evolution, but who doesn't seem to do much else, is referred to as a "pilgrimage". Oh well, I suppose one musn't be a snob about such things.

Flew's is a pretty weak theism.

Nor does it, so far as I can tell, detract one whit from his arguments about the bad character of Number One (as he used to call him).

An appropriate modesty would suggest that we know very little about the universe and ought to refrain from making positive statements about it that we cannot readily back out of. Christians, of all people, ought to get that.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is absence of evidence.

I am a weak atheist, ready to be converted by sufficient evidence. Every day that passes without ANY evidence strengthens the supposition that there is no god (however defined, unless you want to define universe as god, which seems pointless).

As far as a God of Use, Flew's position is the same as mine, I think. We could do with a better one.

jd

No, I'm just saying that human design is less complex compared to what recursive natural processes have wrought. A human can create an algoritm that can generate complexity, but the human mind can't predict the outcome of those processes, so it's not correct to say that the outcome is the result of purposeful design.

Even if humans could design artifacts that equal the complexity of nature, then intelligence is only at a par with nature. Flew's argument is based on the assumption that intelligence is far more capable of designing for complexity than unintelligent natural processes. Without this being the case, the argument falls down.

Peter, this will be trumpeted on the 700 Club and in religious journals as a "win" for "our side". A high profile conversion of an atheist is great propoganda.

I'm with Harry as far as being willing to be convinced by a good argument. Of all the potential arguments, ID has the most promise. But it has to be based on sound principles. Design has to be given a rigorous scientific definition in such a way that you can make definite, quantifiable statements about designed artifacts that cannot be made by un-designed, natural artifacts. It can't just be based on some mental notion of what constitutes design.

Absent that, I am open to the arguments of any burning bush that wishes to speak to me.

Harry:

Npo one who's as adamant about Darwinism--in the face of no evidence--as you is a weak atheist.

Robert:

ID is bunk too. The point is that Darwinism is wrong, not that there's a better theory.

Robert:

We can design the Universe.

OJ:

Except that you've presumed both existence and the questioner.

I'm only following your lead. By invoking creation, you are presuming existence and questioner. Meanwhile you neglect the fundamental problem that invoking a Creator does not solve the question of creation; instead, you only find a way to spell "because" with a capital letter.

No one who's as adamant about Darwinism--in the face of no evidence--as you is a weak atheist.

Evolution and atheism have nothing to do with each other. Not abusing the same surveys you have cited yields the notion that a great many Christians believe Evolution correctly describes the material manifestations of Natural History. And certainly no deist, no matter how neglectful the particular notion of the Creator might be, would find any contradiction with Evolution.

What strikes me as odd, besides your insisting Evolution requires, or even abets, atheism, is that you fail to grind the same axe with regard to historians.

For if the study of history exposes anything, it is that the same ebbs and flows for the same reasons affect all cultures throughout time, without regard to religious proclamation. History, then, demonstrates the same thing Evolution does: if there is a God, it has made Itself wholly indistinguishable from material processes.

We can design the Universe.

OJ, please point to supporting evidence for this claim.

Robert D:
"... the human mind can't predict the outcome of those processes, so it's not correct to say that the outcome is the result of purposeful design."
On this basis most of what we have intentionally designed would be disqualified, since we have never foreseen their outcomes. You confuse design with omniscience.

Robert:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-weinberg.html

The point isn't that Weinberg's right, just that no one doubts we'll figure it out and that it will be elegantly simple when we do. As Stephen Hawking says:

"[I]f we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a
few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take
part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the
answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the
mind of God."

And, of course, Fred Hoyle pointed out that nothing would be simpler than to replicate in a lab the primordial soup from which life on Earth supposedly arose--the only reason it isn't done is because scientists rightly fear it won't produce life.

Jeff:

Yes, that's the difference between Faith and Reason--assuming underpins Faith but destroys Reason yet both are entirely dependent on it.

It is done, Orrin.

Nobody has run the experiment for 200 million years yet, though.

I, for one, am not so sure we will ever understand the universe. We don't know much about it now, and while it seems to be rule-bound, that might turn out not to be entirely the case.

Furthermore, if either Heisenberg or Lorenz, or both, is right, then even if we got the equation, we might not be able to solve it.

Doesn't matter, really.

Whether god exists in the Universe, he exists in (some of) our hearts, and we could use a better one there.

Harry:

The one you've replaced Him with is brutally ugly though.

He doesn't want to kill me.

From my point of view, that's a big improvement

Of course He does, or do you think yourself immortal and infintely fit now?

It's the death by knife I object to. I wanna die with my boots off.

JD
I don't think so. Design involves having a goal in mind for the outcome. It may take trial and error to realize the goal, as with Edison and the lightbulb, but if the effort is not directed by an intentional goal, then I don't think you can call it that.

If you just stumble upon something and find a use for it later, I wouldn't call that design.

OJ
Even granting that someday physicists "figure it out" and come up with a unified theory, that isn't designing a universe. That's just reverse engineering a specification for a universe. That's what knock-off artists working for Korean companies do, we don't call them designers. Designers work from clean sheets of paper, and create something that wasn't there before.

"[I]f we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a
few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."

This is nonsense. Does anyone "understand" quantum physics? When they discover the complete theory, it will be a set of mathematical formulas that covers 1000 pages. It will mean nothing to most people, it will be the biggest non-event in history. It won't explain why the universe exists. It won't say anything about the mind of God. It will try to explain how everything we know about the universe fits together, using metaphors and euphemisms like "strings" and "fields" and "hairyness" to describe entities that are unintelligible to a mind constrained by linear time and 3 spatial dimensions.

Robert:

Yes, Korean knock-offs are as good as the originals now.

When we comprehend Creation it will be expressible in a simple sentence.

Harry:

The choice isn't yours, unless you kill yourself.

OJ,
We cannot comprehend Creation.

No, but we can comprehend the Universe quite easily.

No, but we can comprehend the Universe quite easily.

Just what Robert said. We can comprehend existence. We cannot comprehend creation.

Jeff:

Exactly. We can recreate the Universe but can't know what its purpose is, thus our mortality.

I just don't want the choice to be yours. Acting for god.

The choice ois always someone else's--you just have to pray they choose as you wish.

What does that have to do with God's choice?

Nothing.

Which confirms what I have long observed here: your incovations of God are simply a way to spell "because" with a capital letter.

It has to do with Harry's choice. He denies God because he doesn't like the world God Created--that doesn't change the world.

It sounds an awful lot to me like Harry means such as God as exists is irrelevant to humanity, and bears no resemblance to the God of organized religion.

Which makes him no different than you--you deny God's existence by making up something else entirely.