What would a designed universe look like?

Hokulele said:
[nitpick]

A universe designed for life as we know it. Life as we do not know it is a completely different kettle of horses of many colors.

[/nitpick]


ETA: ARRGGGHHH! Beaten to the punch by one named for an example of an unkind designer. Hmph.
Click to expand...

Sure we have the option to argue that life can exist without atoms or stars, but this takes us way beyond human knowledge. We can then therefore choose (5) and leave the debate. This does however seem rather unsatisfactory. Everything else about human nature, the world, and universe is drawn together through what we currently know. Plenty of it could be wrong, but that shouldn't stop us drawing on what evidence we do have to make conclusions as best we can based on our current understanding. And if we are to follow current understanding, then we have to address universal fine tuning whether we like it or not :)
 
Hokulele said:
Does a design require an actual function? In my previous post, I argued that a design requires an intention, which may be slightly different from a function (unless you are Larsen trying to "sell" something).
Click to expand...
I'd say yes. Otherwise, the creator is not a designer. It is a artist.
 
andyandy said:
But that misses the fundamental problem with the Goldilocks enigma, insofar as based on everything we know, a universe in which the aforementioned parameters were not fine tuned, would be unable to support intelligent life of any description. Indeed there would be no stars, or indeed atoms if such parameters were not fulfilled. That the universe has a set of finely tuned parameters which are required to explain cosmic origin is not a left-field idea - it's mainstream physics. That's why the current thinking tends towards multi-verse theories to explain the astronomical likelihoods required. You seem to be arguing against universal fine tuning by the setting up of "design" through an imposed anthropic ideal centred around your own notions of God. This is not necessary. A designer does not require God, and neither would require perfection (much loved though Omni God is ;))
Click to expand...


No. The reason that I said, "anthropic principles aside" is because I think we should leave that proposition to the side. It simply is not necessary for the discussion.

The issue that I raised is that the life we see in this universe right now is not the only life possible. What we see does not depend on a designer, since we know for a fact that other life forms are possible and did at one time exist. And we can think of many other life forms that have never existed, but that could be designed.

We don't see evidence of a designer in the life that exists in the universe right here and now.

The anthropic principle is a separate issue that also does not prove a designer. Yes, it is entirely possible that there are multiple universes, and it is also possible that numerous other universes have occurred and collapsed because they were not sustainable. That we exist demonstrates nothing but that it is possible (and that it occurred) for a universe to support life like us.
 
Christian Skeptic...

Why did you phrase this in the form of a question? I see no interest on your part of discussing what a designed universe may look like. It would seem that this post was created so that you could reinforce your own belief that this universe was designed.

In assuming that you do in fact believe that this universe in which we reside, shows signs/evidence of design, or meets your criteria for a universe designed by your god, I ask you the following:

Why is what you see as signs or evidence of design, attributable to a God, as opposed to a simulation or virtual universe? Is there an underwear tag showing somewhere in the cosmos with god's name written on it that I do not know about?
 
Last edited:
With respect, it's pointless to argue with people like ACS about these things. The notion that a world without countless rapes, natural disaster deaths and other tragedies a year would somehow be better flies way over their heads, for some reason. They counter it with black-and-white thinking ("you want everything bad to disappear?!"), and then, when we clarify the concept of "shades of grey", which often takes a while for them to grasp, they typically switch to saying that natural disasters are required or that we deserve them or that they somehow are good for us.

It's poorly thought out, very offensive to those of us who, like me, have friends who have become victims of natural disasters, spousal abuse and rape, and incapable of being rationally defended. It is also very inconsistent with the rest of their actions and worldview, but that's another discussion.
 
Last edited:
andyandy said:
Sure we have the option to argue that life can exist without atoms or stars, but this takes us way beyond human knowledge. We can then therefore choose (5) and leave the debate. This does however seem rather unsatisfactory. Everything else about human nature, the world, and universe is drawn together through what we currently know. Plenty of it could be wrong, but that shouldn't stop us drawing on what evidence we do have to make conclusions as best we can based on our current understanding. And if we are to follow current understanding, then we have to address universal fine tuning whether we like it or not :)
Click to expand...


Why is "I do not currently know" (a paraphrase of your option 5) not an acceptable answer? It seems to me that assuming a conclusion without sufficient evidence (fine tuning exists to support human life) is worse than simply saying "I do not currently know."

In addition, I do not see why option 1 is unpalatable. Does everything need a reason to be the way it is? Is there a meaning to the large rock in the middle of my yard at which I curse every weekend while mowing the lawn?
 
Normal Dude said:
I'm not entirely sure, but I would keep an eye out for the galaxy that spells out a copyright symbol.
Click to expand...

This is a good point, actually. In order for the design analogy to hold, the designer would likely have left some mark or signature on the design itself. It would also make sense for the purpose or intent of the design to be discernible.

Additionally, if the universe were designed, then we should still be able to observe the designer in the act. Whenever it comes to anything that is designed, such as a building, an automobile, or even a painting, we can contact the designer and watch these things being designed.

Someone should call the customer service line and complain to Yahweh, because this universe appears to be a lemon. If I can't get my cash back, I want a trade in of equivalent value, damnit!
 
Tricky said:
I strongly disagree. A universe designed for life would have a whole lot more places where life could exist. .
Click to expand...

Why? That seems like a somewhat arbitrarily chosen constraint.
If, as seems likely, life is robust in its ability to survive, then life will likely be found in an astronomical number of places across the universe. But in any case, i'm not sure why design necessitates a given percentage of occupation by life.

The problem is, that when talking about design the baggage of God automatically gets dragged in. And all at once it is the God that people don't believe in that has to be imposed upon the process. It is possible to have a designer without a God, or indeed a simple God merely as cosmic originator, about whom no claims are made.
 
andyandy said:
Sure we have the option to argue that life can exist without atoms or stars, but this takes us way beyond human knowledge. We can then therefore choose (5) and leave the debate. This does however seem rather unsatisfactory. Everything else about human nature, the world, and universe is drawn together through what we currently know. Plenty of it could be wrong, but that shouldn't stop us drawing on what evidence we do have to make conclusions as best we can based on our current understanding. And if we are to follow current understanding, then we have to address universal fine tuning whether we like it or not :)
Click to expand...

Multiverse or Magic!

Susskind wrote a decent book about this. It was called "The Cosmic Landscape" I believe.
 
andyandy said:
It is possible to have a designer without a God, or indeed a simple God merely as cosmic originator, about whom no claims are made.
Click to expand...
Explain this to me. How does a simply god create 100 billion galaxies with 100's of millions of stars (whatever the number is) and be simple? I don't at all think that is a given.
 
I'm still looking forward to your posting of the reasons the universe was created, so we can discuss the resulting design. Maybe I can start you off with some possible initial requirements for the universe’s design:

(Qur'an 21)
16. We did not create the heaven and the earth and all that is between them in play.
17. If We had wished to find pastime, We could have found it in Our Presence - if ever We did.
(Qur'an 51)
56. I have not created jinn nor men except to worship Me.

Or from the King James:
(Revelations 4:11) Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Or in some Christian theology, God created the universe because God is love, and love requires more than One (which is also one of the concepts behind the idea of the Trinity).

I think depending on which of these you pick, you can get different design requirements, and therefore different designed results. For example, I don’t think multiple galaxies would be necessary if the entire purpose of creation were to create man to worship God. But if the point was to give pleasure to God, then the universe could look like pretty much anything that the designer liked, regardless of how long it lasted, how stable it was, or how much its contents made sense. And of course then you have to ask, what gives pleasure to God, and is everything in this universe then an example of that?

But anyway, maybe a #1 requirement is:
1) The universe as created must support human life (as we now know it).

But be careful you’re not just backwards-engineering this to your own requirements. Like when archaeologists of the future dig up a motel six, find skeletons shut inside chambers, and assume the entire thing was designed as a mausoleum. Once that’s assumed, everything else seen there is interpreted in that light.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
Why is "I do not currently know" (a paraphrase of your option 5) not an acceptable answer? It seems to me that assuming a conclusion without sufficient evidence (fine tuning exists to support human life) is worse than simply saying "I do not currently know."

In addition, I do not see why option 1 is unpalatable. Does everything need a reason to be the way it is? Is there a meaning to the large rock in the middle of my yard at which I curse every weekend while mowing the lawn?
Click to expand...

Option five is not unacceptable, but it is the equivalent of throwing one's hands up in the air, when faced with a difficult question. Surely we should attempt an answer based on what we do know, rather than the Rumsfieldian known unknowns and unknown unknowns that we don't?

With regards to one, it is the role of science to look at the reasons why.... so it seems only right to question why an astronomical fluke would apparently happen........ though I'm not sure what science can do about your rock :)

I wouldn't say that fine-tuning does exist to support human life, it is possible that it does, it is possible that exists to support a universe like our own in which we are happy byproducts, it is possible that universal fine-tuning exists because of multi-verses, it is possible that it exists purely as an astronomical fluke, or it is possible that universal fine-tuning does not really exist and we only think it does due to insufficient scientific understanding.
 
RandFan said:
Explain this to me. How does a simply god create 100 billion galaxies with 100's of millions of stars (whatever the number is) and be simple? I don't at all think that is a given.
Click to expand...

simple in this context referred to a God without the baggage......... though, if you buy into a computer simulation argument, maybe one day we will all have the chance to be gods, and I'm pretty simple :)

I thought this might spark debate, but I've got to get some sleep, I fear that I will log on tomorrow and find 80 replies to my posts, all negative - we shall see :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom