To atheists and non creationists, If there is a design, then there is a designer?

Question

Even science has a design. Even in some ocassions, there are laws involved.

Think about DNA. The double helix. Is this not a design, or a random act?
Think about the "laws" of physics and the "laws" of gravity. Are these just coincidences or are they a design?

Even science produces many invisible things that we never knew existed,....ie. radio waves, microwaves, etc.,,,,
My point is, science is well "organized" and seems to follow a pattern. A pattern is a design.
So, my question is, ... finally, .....
How can you still be convinced that God does not exist?


I find science and religion to go hand in hand. That is my belief.

Curious Chemical
you say patterns are not designs, but you say design is the same as a pattern in the end of your answer.

Wow the ignorance really flew off the handle.
5 star 5 design: sounds like you are 3yrs. old? am I right?

Gremlin, How is someone "born"atheist?

Dchinom, Yes we created the formulas, but who created the gravity? And where did the "natural shape" of double helix come from? How do u know it is natural?

Darkness, A deformed person is still a person with DNA.

Simonp, exactly, flipping a coin is chance... Not a PATTERN. So your reasoning is lost.

And Bluepill, If I just stop believing I am alive then all of a sudden i will die?

Answer 1

its funny the deeper theorititions[physics]dig the more convinced they become in the existance of G_D.einstein believed,stephen hawking believes.

Answer 2

I err towards believing that there is an overall creator, but I'm not very good at explaining why. I can try to explain both sides, however.

Douglas Adams used to give the argument of a puddle. There it is, sat in its little indentation in the pavement, when suddenly it's hit by a thought. Look how precisely I fit into this space! Surely, this space must have been designed for me!

what if you are as you are because outside parameters have had an impact on your evolution?

The same arguments that are used to suggest creationism can also be used to push away from it. EG- the "Goldilocks" theory. Earth is precisely balanced in its distance from the sun. a few kilometres closer or further away and the planet would be too hot or too cold to support human life.

1. The Earth was positioned exactly there so that DNA-based lifeforms could exist by a creator-god.
2. Life evolved in the manner in which it has because the earth is in the position it is. If the earth had been closer to the sun, a different form of life might have occurred. Or not, we don't know.

Humans are very good at seeing patterns, but we're not very good at estimating probability. Most of us, if presented with a coin that has flipped Heads 80 times in a row, will say there is a very good chance the next flip will be a head. Of course, it's still 50/50, but we can't accept that. If this experiment we call 'life' is being carried out on an almost infinite number of planets, could it just be that we're one of the lucky ones?

Answer 3

To presuppose design is begging the question. How would you know whether the universe is designed or not? Do you have a definitely designed and non-designed universe to compare it to, so you can classify it correctly? No, you do not.

An analogy would be digging in the ground and unearthing a pot - The reason you know it's a pot, and therefore something designed and made by intelligence, rather than a random lump of clay, is that you have lots of things that are definitely designed by people, and lots of things that definitely aren't, to help you correctly identify your find as a manufactured artefact. We can't do that with the universe (Incidentally though, the very fact that we *do* have things which everyone would identify as non-designed - e.g. unformed lumps of clay - suggests that the supposed 'design' of the universe is not so obvious as some people may like to claim).

If you look at fundamental physics, the 'pattern' you think you see in the universe is not so apparent. Take the masses of fundamental particles, for example:

Electron: 0.00054
Electron-neutrino: <10^-8
Up-quark: 0.0047
Down-quark: 0.0074

Muon: .11
Muon-neutrino: <0.0003
Charm quark: 1.6
Strange quark: 0.16

Tau: 1.9
Tau-neutrino: <0.033
Top quark: 189
Bottom quark: 5.2

Not much pattern there, I think you'd have to agree. No discernible pattern at all, in fact. Comparing the fundamental forces - gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces - gives the same kind of seemingly-random relationship.

It is often pointed out, correctly, that it would only require a very small change in one of these values for the physics of the universe to be radically different - for example, stars might never form at all, or might burn out in decades rather than billions of years, and life could never exist. However, it's logically invalid to push this point the other way round and argue that fundamental physics is the way it is *in order* for the universe to be the way it is (to be suitable to support the evolution of life, for example). All we can say is that if it were different, we wouldn't be here to witness and think about it.

Nor can we argue that the fact that all these apparently random properties of fundamental particles and forces act together to produce order and complexity constitutes evidence for design. It is certainly true that the properties of protons and neutrons mean that they form stable atomic nuclei, and then combine with electrons to form stable atoms, but again we cannot argue backwards and say that these particles are the way they are *in order* to form atoms - All we can say is that stable atoms are a consequence of the nature of matter. The same applies on up the scale to molecules, even highly complex ones like DNA, and to living organisms in their entirety - They are a consequence of fundamental physics, but to say that fundamental physics is designed to bring them about would be a non-sequitur - i.e. the one cannot logically be inferred from the other.

So, to sum up: No, we cannot say that the universe appears designed, and thereby claim the necessity of a designer, because the presupposition of design is what needs to be proven, and so far no-one has ever done any such thing. Hence the lack of religious belief is perfectly compatible with a thorough understanding of the nature of the universe.

Answer 4

No skeptic will begrudge you your beliefs. But your logic is tendentious, and, more importantly it is anthropomorphic and in opposition to some theological thinking.

Yes, patterns can certainly have causes, but that in no way implies that the cause is a deity which plans it. After flipping the same coin for a while you may indeed discern a pattern, but I think you'd be taken aback if I suggested that therefore there must be a deity who created that pattern.

Second, the super-engineer you propose is suspiciously akin to a human counterpart with large paternal inclinations. To the skeptics that sounds a lot like a cultural abstraction of the human condition - especially since it is an otherwise a gratuitous element in an explanation.

Lastly, it's not a question of being "convinced that God does not exist." It's much more like: No, I don't believe in what you call God because neither you nor anyone I know has ever offered evidence to back the claim of its existence. I am a skeptic and I require proof - and the burden is logically and surely on you.

As to the theological issue. My Christian friends who are in the sciences would caution you to stop looking for God to overtly manifest Himself in physics or biology. "You see," they say, "your faith must as large as He is. There will be no pseudo-science parlor trick which will reveal him in our paltry renditions of natural law."

Answer 5

If your god uniquely designed nature then this means that this god must be capable of analyzing and solving the complex problem of constructing complex universes. This means that the creator god must itself be complex. Thus the invocation of God as a solution to the question of complex existence is in reality no solution at all, it merely serves to obfuscate the issues at hand.

The explanation that a complex creator is responsible for the origin of complexity is no explanation at all. You merely have swept the question of why we see complexity under the rug, where you pretend it doesn't exist.
So how does god come about? Does he evolve? Where did that happen? Was he created? Created by what? You might tell me he "just is", but then it must be extremely simple. Certainly not the incredibly complex creator god posited by christians.

It is not possible to wish away this problem by claiming that God is unexplainable or does not require an explanation.

The fact someone wins a lottery doesn't usually imply they cheated, it merely implies there were a diversity of lottery tickets. We are likely the result of diversity, not some invisible cheater. Ultimately, complexity comes from selection effects not prior complexity.

Consider that Kolmogorov complexity is a measure of the number of ways that the description of something of a given bit size could be different than it is. Whatever the nature of the reason for reality as a whole, it must be profoundly simple. Otherwise we face the difficult question of why are not things different. The problem for most theists the gods they claim exist are profoundly complicated not simple.

The creator myth answers no questions, it merely sweeps the questions under the rug where they are ignored. Why does the god exist. That issue is never addressed.


The part of reality we observe seems complex but that is a selection effect. Reality as a whole is likely simple. If you claim your god is needed to explain complexity through creation then your god must be even more complex. And it itself needs an even greater explanation.

Answer 6

You are babbling.

"Think about the "laws" of physics and the "laws" of gravity. Are these just coincidences or are they a design?"

Coincedences to what? They have been developed and refined by humans. We created the formulas because they seem to effectively describe the natural phenomenon. There is no design there. DNA is in a double helix form because that is the natural shape dictated by its chemical structure. Why do you see design in a spiral? Just because it isn't a tangled mess of proteins?

Science and religion can only go hand-in-hand if your religion can adapt to new information. Most religions can't.

Answer 7

Religion is about God, and like you said, is just a belief. Belief is not really true its just a form of survival.

Science is real and the truth that is bound to change.
i'd say they don't go hand in hand, they just couldn't meet together.

it doesn't matter whether you believe this or not. the truth is we are alive because we believe on something. you won't exist if you don't believe. so nobody cannot know the real truth

DNA, laws, physics is not really a design its the results of all the components of the universe clashes altogether by two opposite enrgies at a moment, while we may see it as a law or design whatsoever we been leaned or teached, it is bound to change.
it is not really permanent, its just a point of view at the moment in our time. a mere fraction of a whole timelessness of the universe.
the universe is just a neverending energy that constantly changing.
so people will not going to exits forever, but life is.
the universe as a whole is a form of life.

from the point of view of science the truth is there is no God. i also chose to survive so, from the point of view of religion i believe in God.

Answer 8

If god exists, he needs to be designed by a bigger force, you don't think such a well "designed" being exists without design, do you?

If a perfect god can exists without design, why can't the universe exist without design?

"Laws" are abstractions of the reality to explain certain phenomenon, now if such phenomenon needs to be designed to act in a way, can we use the same "logic" to state that god needs to be designed to act in order and not chaos? Complexity is another abstraction used for humans to label natural events, complexity is in the eye of the beholder, it's not a "natural and definitive law", what was complex a few centuries ago might not be complex now. We can't state what is too complex for the universe to be created by "design" since we don't have a full understanding, not even a sufficient understanding of the universe. What is your point of reference to determine what is too complex for the universe? The causes can be millions of things we have not a clue they exist.

And yes, there are invisible things that we didn't know that they existed, and there are millions of things in the universe that we don't know they exist, we don't even fully understand our own known tiny universe (that we call earth), our understanding of the universe is close to nothing and to explain that nothing with god is just the easiest thing to do instead just accepting we don't have answers for everything.

Now the god that most "atheist" deny is the "theist" god (it's not "adeism" you know, but "atheism"), a god that intervene in everyday's basis in human life, a god that is everywhere, a god that judge and punishes, a god that send his holy words, a god that saves and kill people. We don't need to go to the beginning of the universe or check its design to not believe in such a chimera.

Answer 9

Your belief is shared by many people but why should naturally occuring things, which as you put it are 'a pattern' be proof that there is a god? What about things which don't follow nature's 'patterns', people/animals born with deformaties etc, is this in your view proof that the devil exists? Religion can't be seen as partnered with science, Science showed us Dinosaurs walked the earth Way before we did yet many religions say the bones were put there by god to test your faith...

Answer 10

There is actually a whole website dedicated to this matter, which deals with creationism and ethical behaviour regarding whether to teach intelligent design in the class room or not. There was a whole court case dealing with the matter, where the judge actually through the case out; the case was over a teacher teaching intelligent design rather than evolution. Something of this nature or another...

Answer 11

If you said God exists and can not be seen similarly to radio wave, air, etc. then you are hopeless, anything the Atheists try to explain to you will become a joke. You had to be born Atheist to understand. I just hope you don't try to teach young children your way of thinking, as a result, you're only producing more ignorants. Peace!