Why is a \"designer\" so compelling? (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, July 17, 2009, 23:46 (5606 days ago) @ dhw

Anser to 2:
> 2) You ask us to tell you why "a supernatural deity is an acceptable alternative" (presumably to chance). From my point of view it's not. And chance is not an acceptable alternative to a designer. But when you say a "supernatural deity", you are loading the question with a term which can be misinterpreted and which needs much closer scrutiny. As I tried to point out in my discussion with John Clinch, we do not know the bounds of nature. We are hamstrung here by language, because words like deity and God are loaded with associations. Design implies consciousness, i.e. some sort of unknown and probably unknowable conscious power. That's the design theory. It can and does lead to all kinds of speculation about the possible nature of a designer (and hence to the various religions), but these are not part of the theory itself. 
> - Then I attack the utility/necessity of invoking something that is unknowable. One of Nietzsche's metaphysical arguments that has gone unchallenged is this: - God is described as unknowable and unthinkable. Why then should we base our thought upon something that is unknowable and unthinkable? - God is unthinkable in the sense that no one can think out his/her boundaries, limits, consciousness, any of it. It is therefore folly to base human thought on that which is unthinkable. A human metaphysic should be based soley on what is thinkable. - 
Answer to 3:
> 3) The invocation of a creator is "a direct statement of the old creationist 'god of the gaps'." I find this pejorative expression irritating. All theories are attempts to fill gaps. The theory of abiogenesis fills the gaps with chance or with unknown natural laws, so should we call that theory 'genesis of the gaps'? Every attempt to solve a mystery entails fixed points and filling the gaps between those points (see Gestalt theory). Why should the God theory be singled out? (For the falsifiability argument, see (5)).
> - I know it irritates you but it also irritates me to hear "oh, we can't explain that. It must be supernatural!" Why can't we let investigation take its course? You don't see too much of that the other way around... I don't remember the last time I heard "The silence Abraham heard while walking with his son isn't explained by psychology, it is explained by the lack of aural stimuli in the environment!" You only see this kind of argumentation about natural phenomenon that doesn't have an adequate explanation. The scientific version of abiogenesis is the best we've got... invoking a creator serves no purpose and explains nothing. - Answer to 4:
>
Do you then REALLY believe there is the slightest possibility of other alternatives ever being completely exhausted? If you don't (and I don't see how you can), you know that you will never bring in outside assumptions, and therefore your REAL position is that you will never consider the possibility of a deity (or outside intelligence).
> - It should be pretty clear especially from my above Nietzsche metaphysic that I would much rather see our race's industry spent in studying things that can really TRULY be investigated. That's my normative position. To be clear: I am rather unlikely to accept a creator argument as the object of theology is unknowable. But because the one virtue I intend on holding fast to is truthfulness you will never see me say "God does not exist," without words such as "I feel," or "I think." I'm not a staunch materialist, just very aware of the constraints of our methods of study. If you want a formal statement, "We can't know whether or not god exists, but I suspect he/she/it doesn't." - My criteria for accepting a claim is incredibly high.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"