How should the universe look like if there is a God?

[Exponential]

Hi everyone,

[Excerpt]
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
-- Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995), quoted from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001)

One of the criteria for a theory to be considered as scientific is the "refutability" or the ability to falsify a theory by a new evidence. The atheist claims that the universe has no purpose, no mind, no plan and no god. For this claim about the universe to be considered reasonably scientific and not just a "belief", it should be falsifiable. Hence, the question for atheists: If the properties of the universe shows that there is no god and no purpose as said in the Dawkins's quote, How do you think the universe would look like if there is, at the bottom, a design and purpose?

Thank you,

[Sophus]

Hi everyone,

[Excerpt]
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
-- Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995), quoted from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001)

One of the criteria for a theory to be considered as scientific is the "refutability" or the ability to falsify a theory by a new evidence. The atheist claims that the universe has no purpose, no mind, no plan and no god. For this claim about the universe to be considered reasonably scientific and not just a "belief", it should be falsifiable. Hence, the question for atheists: If the properties of the universe shows that there is no god and no purpose as said in the Dawkins's quote, How do you think the universe would look like if there is, at the bottom, a design and purpose?

Thank you,

Well first of all, that's just one Dawkins quote. Dawkins really has no trouble at all going into great depth on why he thinks this way. That being said, I would personally answer the question like this:

If there were a grand design in the universe we would be, well... designed, and not the process of evolution. And if there were a purpose it would be objectively provable and not a clearly subjective matter of personal opinion.

[Matt]

If there were a grand design in the universe we would be, well... designed, and not the process of evolution. And if there were a purpose it would be objectively provable and not a clearly subjective matter of personal opinion.

I would extend that to making everything objectively provable.  The second law of thermodynamics would not apply and the universe wouldn't be so huge that travel and communication across even a tiny fraction of it would be impossible.  Also, less barren wasteland and more awesome stuff.  We're talking about a benevolent god, right?

[Sophus]

If there were a grand design in the universe we would be, well... designed, and not the process of evolution. And if there were a purpose it would be objectively provable and not a clearly subjective matter of personal opinion.

I would extend that to making everything objectively provable.  The second law of thermodynamics would not apply and the universe wouldn't be so huge that travel and communication across even a tiny fraction of it would be impossible.  Also, less barren wasteland and more awesome stuff.  We're talking about a benevolent god, right?

Yes, I think prayer should also have an observable affect on patients (studies have irrelevantly shown they don't but can actually sometimes make the patient feel pressured and do worse in recovery) and also we might expect to see some faithful amputees healed. Any otherwise impossible miracles really.

[The Magic Pudding]

I don't know how the universe should look, but there's some shoddy work evident in us and other animals.

http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

The recurrent laryngeal nerve
The nerve 'wiring' of the mammalian larynx is also bizarre. Nerve signals for bodily operations travel from the brain down the spine, then branch off. Fair enough. The larynx is in the neck, so one might expect that the relevant nerve would come off the spine at the neck. And, it does: the recurrent laryngeal nerve originates from the spinal cord in the neck, as a branch of the vagus nerve. But then, bizarrely, rather than taking a direct route across the neck, it instead passes down the neck and into the chest, loops under the posterior side of the aorta by the heart, then travels right back up again to the larynx. Which is a waste of materials by anyone's standard, but in the case of the giraffe, it implies a Creator so set on the mammalian Bauplan that an extra 10 to 15 feet of nerve is needed.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This Designer obviously flunked engineering and biochemistry as well.  I rather like Humes's idea of a toddler god, just learning to mange his awesome powers, and we are one of his failed experiments.  Assuming, of course, that there are any such things as gods.

[hackenslash]

Hi everyone,

[Excerpt]
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
-- Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995), quoted from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001)

One of the criteria for a theory to be considered as scientific is the "refutability" or the ability to falsify a theory by a new evidence.

And that statement is falsifiable in principle. All that is required to falsify it is the provision of evidence for design, purpose, evil or good.

The atheist claims that the universe has no purpose, no mind, no plan and no god.

Wrong. The atheist claims, quite correctly, that there is no good reason to suppose that the universe has any of those attributes.

For this claim about the universe to be considered reasonably scientific and not just a "belief", it should be falsifiable.

I have already provided the null hypothesis for you.

Hence, the question for atheists: If the properties of the universe shows that there is no god and no purpose as said in the Dawkins's quote, How do you think the universe would look like if there is, at the bottom, a design and purpose?

That's not what the statement says. Dawkins has never said that those are not attributes of the universe, only that there is no support for the opposing statement. The universe does look like those are not attributes of the universe, not least because observational evidence demonstrates that testable natural processes are perfectly sufficient to account for vast classes of phenomena, rendering hypotheses concerning deities entirely superfluous and irrelevant.

Thank you,

You're welcome.

[Inevitable Droid]

How do you think the universe would look like if there is, at the bottom, a design and purpose?

Since you don't propose for consideration any particular design or purpose, I would answer that, if the universe had a design or purpose, then the processes of the universe would reflect the design objectives, or appear to be serving the purpose.

If I were willing to entertain unfalsifiable hypotheses - which I'm not, but if I were - I would suggest the hypothesis that the design objectives of the universe have to do with experimentation as to what is possible, what is more or less utile, and what is more or less strategic.  I would thus be suggesting that mutation and natural selection reflect the design objectives.  My designer would thus be Crom, Robert E. Howard's God of Conan, interpreted by me as an archetypal symbol for mutation and natural selection.

But since Crom would be an unfalsifiable hypothesis, I reject him out of hand.

[Tank]

[Exponential]

Thank you guys for your responses.

If there were a grand design in the universe we would be, well... designed, and not the process of evolution.

How would you know if something (x) is designed? is the inability to yet explain how x could've come to existence without gradual natural processes enough to claim that it is designed?

For example there are some bimolecular machines where there is no yet sufficient explanation to how it has been evolved. Should we just say it has been designed because we don't know how it evolved? or should we believe that there would be sufficient explanation in the future as scientists usually believe?

If there is no way to show how something looked designed is not designed but to say that there would be explanation for it in the future, would that mean if God exists, her existence cannot be proven by science?
   

The universe does look like those are not attributes of the universe, not least because observational evidence demonstrates that testable natural processes are perfectly sufficient to account for vast classes of phenomena, rendering hypotheses concerning deities entirely superfluous and irrelevant.

Since the basic objective of physics is to demonstrate how vast classes of phenomena could be explained by one grand theory, would that mean that God might exist only if we could not do science?

[i_am_i]

The atheist claims that the universe has no purpose, no mind, no plan and no god.

Some do, sure. Some don't claim a damn thing.

[Inevitable Droid]

How would you know if something (x) is designed?

I'll define artifact as, "anything assembled out of components by an animal or sculpted, carved, or decorated by an animal, be the animal in either case sapient or non-sapient."  It would be impossible for an artifact to come into being without design, and so to discover something that is obviously an artifact is to discover something obviously designed, and claiming such would do no violence to empiricism or logic.  To claim design for something that obviously isn't an artifact is by definition to claim design by a non-animal, and thus to claim the existence of a non-animalian designer, a thing an example of which has never been observed in nature even once, by any human, ever, since our ancient mother Lucy shambled across the African grasslands.  To claim design for something that obviously isn't an artifact is therefore to claim the physical existence of something that exists only in the imagination so far as we know, to whit, a non-animalisn designer, and such a claim does violence to empricism, causing the empiricist to reject it (the claim) out of hand.  Upon discovering something that initially can't be categorized unequivocally as artifact or non-artifact, the empiricist, if sufficiently curious, will set about devising a test or series of tests that will answer the question, and then will perform the test or series of tests.      

is the inability to yet explain how x could've come to existence without gradual natural processes enough to claim that it is designed?

No.  Not just no but hell no.  Upon discovering an obvious non-artifact, or, subsequent to performing the relevant test or series of tests, confidently or at least tentatively categorizing something as a non-artifact, the empiricist, if unable to say how the non-artifact came into being, and, if sufficiently curious, will set about trying to solve that problem by scientific methods, and will make no claims as to the origins of the non-artifact until scientific methods have borne fruit and the problem has been solved.
   
The empiricist's response to the unknown is always either indifference or science, never theology.

For example there are some bimolecular machines where there is no yet sufficient explanation to how it has been evolved. Should we just say it has been designed because we don't know how it evolved?

No.  Not just no but hell no.

or should we believe that there would be sufficient explanation in the future as scientists usually believe?

The empiricist claims nothing without evidence.  The historical evidence of science's track record, which is replete with myriad tales of wonderful successes, will lead the empiricist to claim the strong probability that science will eventually explain the origins of bimolecular machines, for example, ribosomes.  The empiricist then, if sufficiently curious, will begin doing science.  

If there is no way to show how something looked designed -

Nothing looks designed unless it's obviously an artifact.  To say, for example, that an obvious non-artifact looks designed is to cloud your observational apparatus with theology.  An obvious non-artifact may demonstrate wonderful complexity of structure and/or function.  That's all an empiricist will see when looking at an obvious non-artifact.

- is not designed but to say that there would be explanation for it in the future, would that mean if God exists, her existence cannot be proven by science?

Yes.  Not just yes but hell yes.  Bear in mind that I define God as, "that which, not of nature, is nature's author."  No empirical test will ever reveal the existence of something not of nature, for empiricism can only operate on nature, as our senses and scientific instruments are of nature and cannot examine, monitor, or even detect something that is not of nature.  Regardless of circumstance, positing God will always require a leap of faith.  Even the most wonderful, awe-inspiring, and mysterious circumstance will trigger in the empiricist either indifference or curiosity, and the latter, if sufficiently strong, will trigger the empiricist to begin doing science, and continue doing science until the mystery is solved, with the solution being an answer entirely, one hundred percent, rooted in the processes of nature.

[hackenslash]

Since the basic objective of physics is to demonstrate how vast classes of phenomena could be explained by one grand theory, would that mean that God might exist only if we could not do science?

Can you say non-sequitur? The one has nothing to do with the other. The existence of a deity is not predicated upon our ability to observe reality.

[ablprop]

Let's compare this question to another. Is there extraterrestrial intelligence in the universe? Now, I have no idea if there is or isn't, just as I have no idea if there is or isn't a god. But the fact that I live in a universe where I could claim such ignorance and not be branded a fool speaks volumes.

We all can imagine a universe in which extraterrestrial intelligence is evident. But we don't live there - at least, such intelligence is not evident anywhere we've looked.

Equally, we can imagine a universe in which a god is evident. Such a universe, in fact, is described through much of Genesis. Abraham could have no doubt about God's existence - not and still believe in his own sanity, at any rate. Yet we don't live in that universe - not anymore, at any rate. So could there be a god? Of course there could. But why hide so well? Why build a universe that makes it look for all the world like god isn't needed? Why not put an obelisk on the Moon that says "I am the Lord your God"?

So if a god really is hiding, I say let her hide. We're doing just fine on our own, thanks.

[dloubet]

I like the watch on the beach argument when a theist tries it. I have to ask them why they notice the watch when they believe the whole world is designed. As far as they're concerned, they're walking on a beach made of watches, under a sky of watches, as the tide of watches comes in, and I'm supposed to believe they'll look down and exclaim, "Oh look! A watch!"

Jeeze.

But as to what the universe would look like, well it depends on the god doesn't it? If it's the biblibal one, we should be seeing mountians moved by prayer, followers able to ingest any poison without ill effect, any number of things the bible says are possible that we in fact DON'T see.