Fooloso4 wrote:Accepting that it could have a low level design is a step towards accepting that the universe could have a designer, and this designer could be called God …
One might infer a designer from a design but it is this inference that Dawkins is questioning.
Where is the question in his quote? It looks like he is asserting that we "should expect" a universe with no design to have precisely the properties that we observe in the universe. If not totally inferring that the universe has no design, it appears he is inferring that the universe looks like it has no design. Without having had any experience of a universe that is known to have no design, what might any assertions, inferences, and expectations along these lines be based on?
Fooloso4 wrote:If we can show that a natural process can occur without recourse to a designer then why make take the step toward a designer unless one wishes to defend the claim that there is a designer?
How can anyone show that a natural process can occur without recourse to a designer unless it is already known that nature has no designer? The best anyone can do is show something that is not known to have a designer; something that is not known to have any input from any entity that might qualify as a designer. This can be a step towards accepting the universe could have no designer.
Note that the stated step was not "toward a designer" - accepting the universe
does have a designer - but accepting the universe
could have a designer. This and accepting the universe could have no designer is essentially a step towards the same position of open possibility with regards to a designer - the universe may or may not have a designer. If there is no experience of other universes that are known to have a designer. or no designer, then there is no statistical probability. Neither possibility is more probable than the other, and it is unknown if the universe has a designer, or no designer.
Anyone with an aversion to the unknown may feel inclined to take a step away from the unknown towards accepting the universe has a designer, or no designer. These are polar opposite positions but they have the same absolute value of faith, requiring the rejection one possibility in favour of another without evidence to support this.
Fooloso4 wrote:It does matter whether the laws are descriptive or prescriptive if we are discussing such things as the origin of the universe.
Perhaps this is tied to the question of whether the universe has a designer or not, but if behaviour of the universe can be predicted from the laws, what significant difference does it make if the laws are descriptive or prescriptive? If God says, "you are free to do whatever you like but these laws allow me to tell exactly what you will do with 100% certainty" then where is the freedom or possibility to act outside these laws? What difference does it make if God's laws are descriptive or prescriptive?
Fooloso4 wrote:Most definitions of 'design' suggest there is some orderly action behind the design that would normally be performed by a designer, but "a coherent or purposeful pattern, as opposed to chaos" is less suggestive of this.
I am not clear on the distinction you are making between design and pattern or what “purposeful” means in this context.
The quoted text was from Collins English Dictionary. It seemed that this definition was the less suggestive of a designer than other definitions. This could allow patterns like those observed in Conway's Game of Life to qualify as design, even though these are not specified in the design by the designer. These patterns could be regarded as designer-less design. However, in this case it is understood the patterns are consequences of a lower-level design which has a designer. Also, the inclusion of 'purposeful' in the definition may suggest a designer to some extent
Fooloso4 wrote:Materialism or naturalism or whatever term one might use to exclude the supernatural from an explanation of natural phenomena, thinks of “orderly action” as the forces, behavior, and interaction of the “stuff” of the universe.
What is the origin of the forces and stuff of the universe? Whatever answer is given, we can ask what is the origin of that, and so on, until the answer is: "It doesn't have an origin. It has always existed and it is the origin of all other things. It seems like God in these respects. We may as well call this God"; or "We don't know. We don't have a satisfactory explanation for that yet" ...
Fooloso4 wrote:For materialism there is design without designer. As long as design can be explained in natural terms there is no need for a designer. Many materialists take a less polemical stance than Dawkins.
It appears that Dawkins went a step further and suggested that the universe has no design - at bottom - that any higher level design we may observe has arisen from no design at the lowest level.
It can be shown that higher level "design" (patterns) can arise from lower level design, but how to show that design can arise from absolutely no design?
Fooloso4 wrote:It is not for them a matter of excluding God but of not including God. If things can be explained without recourse to God there is no reason to add God in.
Science is the study of nature. Super-nature is beyond the domain of nature and therefore beyond the scope of science. Science can exclude God
from the study without excluding God
in the study. Science can aim to provide natural explanations for everything about the universe, but while such explanations are incomplete we can ask about gaps in the explanations. How best to deal with a gap?
Options include: filling the gap with something (eg, a scientific theory or a supernatural explanation); hiding the gap ("move along, there is nothing to question or explain here, we have all the answers you need to know"); acknowledge the gap and openly explore this.
While there are gaps, science can remain neutral and totally open to supernatural possibilities while continuing to focus on finding natural explanations to fill the gaps. Any rejection or acceptance of supernatural explanation would be unscientific. It can not be scientifically concluded that everything has a natural explanation.
Science can be like focusing on trying to reverse engineer the laws of nature without being distracted by questions of supernatural input and origins. The universe may or may not have supernatural input and origins in addition to laws of nature but such questions are beyond the scope of science. Such questions can be explored by philosophy and other disciplines.
One way to explore supernatural possibilities is to look at sub-universes. A sub-universe can be regarded as sub-natural relative to this universe, natural relative to itself, and this universe can be regarded as supernatural relative to the sub-universe. If it is accepted that a sub-universe can exist within this universe, then it can be accepted that this universe could potentially exist within a super-universe.
A sub-universe could be powered by its super-universe, via a device like a computer, with software that governs the nature of the sub-universe, and an interface that allows an exchange of input and output between the two.
The beauty of a sub-universe is that we can observe both the sub-universe (via an interface) and its super-universe (this universe) and have some understanding about the relationship between the two.
An instance of Conway's Game of Life (CGOL) can be viewed as a simple sub-universe. (Anyone who is unfamiliar with CGOL can look this up. Basically, the "universe" of CGOL is a 2 dimensional array of square cells. Each cell can either be live or dead and has 8 neighbours (orthogonal and diagonal). An initial pattern of live cells is set up at the start. Then at each step in time, the following rules are applied: (1) any live cell with 2 or 3 live neighbours stays alive; (2) any live cell with less than 2 or greater than 3 live neighbours dies; (3) any dead cell with exactly 3 live neighbours becomes live.)
In many instances, complex patterns can be observed.
Let's imagine that one instance is somehow able to produce patterns that are complex enough to explore their universe and think scientifically and philosophically, without any additional access to this universe beyond their universe ... What could they potentially understand about the nature of their universe? What could they potentially understand about this universe (their super-universe), including whether it exists or not?
What could they reasonably infer regarding the origins, design, purpose, designer, creator, etc, of their universe, or lack thereof?
We can tell from our "superior" position in this universe that their universe has a design; a designer, one or more creators, and an initiator (they may or may not be the same person - who best fits "God"?); some purpose (although exactly what this purpose is may be harder to tell); a super-universe; and supernatural origins - but no supernatural input (divine intervention) after it starts - it is deterministic - except, perhaps, a premature end ...
It there anything about their universe that could allow them to correctly infer any of this that is lacking from this universe?