1. Comment #81309 by admin on October 24, 2007 at 3:07 pm

thirdchimpanzee writes:

I propose three distinct grounds for rebuttal:

1. The Universe is not very rational
Whenever I've seen this argument put forward (as D'Souza did) - its usually buttressed by a simplistic understanding of the science. So D'Souza talks about the inverse square law of gravity, but has no idea that Einstein spent the rest of his career trying to reconcile gravity with the other forces, and failing. I don't think anyone wrestling with 11 dimensions, two of which may be time, would call their world very rational.

2. The Universe is not really "comprehensible" to us
This is a bit harder to explain, but if understanding is connected to the ability to predict consequences, then in many areas of physics, climatalogy, astronomy etc. we are basically reliant on computers processing models to generate visualisations or other "conclusions" that we can then "understand". Our evolved brains are simply no longer capable of performing the mathematics or other modelling required to come up with detailed predictions. Obviously we created the computers and the programs to do the analysis - but in the future we will probably have AI's doing scientific discovery on their own, and "keeping us posted". Either way, the argument that the Universe was strangely made comprehensible to us falls away - our brains simply can't handle 11 dimensions!

3. A Universe that follows laws implies a law giver
Maybe its time to ditch the word "Law" from the the scientific lexicon. There's no "Law of Gravity" - and its an 18th Century concept that looks increasingly suspect. What we have are "models" of various aspects of the Universe, and insofar as the models continue to generate useful predictions, we continue to support them. When they start failing, we refine the model to the point where it might have to be replaced. Our actual legal system (at least the Common Law variety) follows this same pattern - these "Laws" reflect transient understandings of how society or the Universe works. This has nothing to do with "immutable" laws drawn from the Bible or any other religious source - and therefore carries no implication of a "law giver"

Other Comments by admin

2. Comment #81313 by Jolly Bloger on October 24, 2007 at 3:13 pm

And of course, a creator would himself imply a higher creator, and so on. With this argument its turtles all the way down and gods all the way up.

Other Comments by Jolly Bloger

3. Comment #81335 by Eamonn Shute on October 24, 2007 at 3:44 pm

1. We need to distinguish between "prescriptive" laws and "descriptive" laws. A prescriptive law, such as one created by a government, says how we should behave, but we have the ability to break such a law. A scientific law, on the other hand is descriptive - it is a description of how nature behaves, and it is a truism that nature cannot violate such a description.

2. Many fundamental laws of science can be explained, for example the conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum and electric charge, and the inverse square laws of gravity and electromagnetism. There is even a scientific explanation for the fact that there are four dimensions of spacetime. These laws are the inevitable result of logical considerations, so they do not require a god.

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

4. Comment #81352 by Augustus Osari on October 24, 2007 at 4:03 pm

I actually think an effective rebuttal is quite simple:

A rational universe is, of course, a universe which is held to firm laws. Though these laws may not always be properly understood, they exist. That is what it means for a universe to be rational.

Now, if there were not laws which dictated how things act and react, there would not be any way by which these things might act and react. Essentially, everything would be able to do anything at any time for any reason or lack thereof; everything would be undefined in both its concrete form and its conceptual understanding. An irrational universe would not exist, and, at the same time, it would exist. It would simultaneously hold every single concept to be true and untrue. An irrational universe is an equivalent of division by zero: both are disastrous.

To put it in another way, "irrational" is the state of not being "rational." If there was a universe which was not rational, it would, by default, be irrational. "Irrational" is essentially the term used to designate things which are apparently impossible. "Impossible" is just another word for what cannot exist or transpire. An irrational universe, therefore, would be defined as a nonexistent universe.

Regardless of which method used to arrive at the conclusion, it is clear that nothing could possibly exist irrationally, as the very state of existing requires that there is some set of laws which allow for existence.

The universe, of course, exists. This means that the universe is, of course, rational. The argument basically boils down to "The universe exists. Therefore, God exists."

There are already multitudes of rebuttals for such an argument.

Other Comments by Augustus Osari

5. Comment #81364 by Jack Rawlinson on October 24, 2007 at 4:16 pm

"...a Universe that follows "laws" implies a "law giver", and our ability to comprehend those laws is further evidence of the divine purpose of the Universe."

This old chestnut is a classic example of the fallacy of equivocation, in which different meanings of the same word are conflated in order to confuse. The word in this case is "law". The equivocation should be blown apart as follows:

The first use of "laws" in this statement refers to the concept of observed regularities. The second use refers to the concept of authoritative command or rules. Two different meanings of the word "law" are being fallaciously conflated, therefore the argument is invalid.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

6. Comment #81372 by auryn on October 24, 2007 at 4:24 pm

A rational universe implies a rational universe. Whether (as the poster above pointed out) there could be such a thing as an irrational universe is highly debatable. Therefore it is simply a given for both theists and atheists. Neither side can take credit for it.

If the theists do try to take credit for the natural order of things the least we can do is accuse them of lazyness, since the achievements of science actually had to be worked for.

Other Comments by auryn

7. Comment #81380 by bornabaptist on October 24, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Is this the god in the gaps argument?

The universe appears strange, not rational at the moment. Our theories, brilliant as they are, lack the explanatory power needed to rationally explain the universe, and rid us of the gaps the faithful continue to fill with a deity.

Once we explain the universe, religion will place god prior to the beginning, or deny our understanding.

Other Comments by bornabaptist

8. Comment #81464 by maton100 on October 24, 2007 at 7:10 pm

What's so rational about the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Other Comments by maton100

9. Comment #81472 by ? on October 24, 2007 at 7:36 pm

The universe shows no sign of being governed by a personal will or conscious intelligence. The impressive "order" we see is mathematical, impersonal and amoral.

If you want to call this "intelligence" in some abstract philosophical sense (and go on to call that "God" in a pantheist or extreme deist sense), fine. But it has no real analogy to the intelligence of a sentient being.

A personal intelligence(s) would actually preoduce little in the way of predictable order. Things would move according to the will of the creator/sustainer at any given moment. A person driving a car doesn't go on indefinately in some complex but meaningless pattern. The take the car wherever they want to go! Traffic accidents happen because you can't say "Well, that car has been going slowly and making all left turns as long as I've been observing it, so I can assume that it is governed by the Law of Slow Left Turns and totally ignore the possiblity that it might do anything else."

Other Comments by ?

10. Comment #81646 by Conrad on October 25, 2007 at 1:54 am

This argument is no different than "everything has a beginning, there must be a first cause. That cause is god" argument.

A beginning to the univese does not imply a "Causer" no more than laws imply a "lawgiver".

Rationality is then explained by darwinian principles allowing us to naturally comprehend the environment we are being naturally selected against. Being able to comprehend such an environment is a great advantege to not being able to comprehend it, that would easily be selected for.

Other Comments by Conrad

11. Comment #81707 by Auld on October 25, 2007 at 4:16 am

The illusion that most religionists have is that god is rational, which is what led to a rational universe. This is a fallacy.

We happen to inhabit a rational universe. Humans are rational. As a result, humans were able to create a religion that is also rational. I.e. to posit a god that is able to give rational laws. It does not follow that science obtains its rationality from religion. Science is rational because humans are rational. Rationalism is not some supernatural phenomena.

Other Comments by Auld

12. Comment #81719 by BillySands on October 25, 2007 at 5:04 am

I find it inconsistent when christians point to laws as evidece of a law giver. They tend to forget the problem of their own fall doctrine - man sinned and corrupted the whole universe - therefore if there was a divine law giver, the laws as they are (according to christians) can not be the result of their god. They are effectively arguing laws exist despite their god.

Could a god not design a universe that is not hostile to us? We are in a cosmic shooting gallery and subject to many natural disasters

Other Comments by BillySands

13. Comment #81895 by JerryD385 on October 25, 2007 at 11:17 am

Our brains evolved simulations of our "middle world"* to better act in it (Dennetts Popperian and Gregorian creatures). Rationality is a cobbled together simulation of the universe. The universe is not a simulation of rationality or intelligence.

Intelligence, while amazing and all that, is a mere shadow of the real world, a toy model, and it is our human-centric chauvinism that places it higher than reality.


*I believe Dawkins used this term to explain why we are intuitive about physics (somewhat) at our level, but on the level of quantum particles or the speed of light, our intuition breaks down. Expose people like D'sousa to five minutes of quantum physics or reletivity, and you will hear something like, "see, the universe is mysterious and irrational, therefor God." The True-Believer(tm) sees God no matter what.

Other Comments by JerryD385

14. Comment #82060 by Mewtwo_X on October 25, 2007 at 3:47 pm

"The word 'Law' in Natrual Law is a metaphor for commonalities seen in nature. To use the phrase 'law' to imply 'lawgiver' is begging the question. As to whether or not rational universe implies a designer, I note that we make the universe rational for our conception. Once again, the claim begs the question."

Other Comments by Mewtwo_X

15. Comment #82115 by Rtambree on October 25, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Just take a look at the Hubble Ultra Deep Field with its thousand of distant galaxies and then ask yourself, "Does He care about my sex life?"

Other Comments by Rtambree

16. Comment #82118 by Diacanu on October 25, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Design is an illusion of a pattern finding brain that evolved.



Other Comments by Diacanu

17. Comment #82497 by HumanisticJones on October 26, 2007 at 1:15 pm

As I understand it, Scientific "Laws" are really nothing more than general case statements for how things should work in a particular reference. Could we not benefit maybe from changing from the Law of Gravity to The General Case of Gravity?

Other Comments by HumanisticJones

18. Comment #82572 by hasty toweling on October 26, 2007 at 6:53 pm

I don't think it makes sense to argue against this one directly. It's really a tactic intended to derail the conversation off the question: "Why is any *particular* religion true?"

The implied logic behind this arguement looks like this: "The universe is orderly. Therefore your baby needs to have special water poured on her in order to avoid being tortured by the creator of the universe after she dies."

This logic is what needs to be attacked, not the idea that there may be some sort of designer or whatever you want to call it.

Other Comments by hasty toweling

19. Comment #82674 by smithyboy on October 27, 2007 at 7:38 am

A rational universe implies a creator

This argument is based on a straightforward substitution of one meaning of 'rational universe' with another. (1) The scientist has a working hypothesis that the universe can be understood by the use of reason. In this sense only it is 'a rational universe'. This is an epistemological claim. (2) The theist/deist on the other hand uses the phrase 'rational universe' to imply something (though that something is rather ill-defined) about the universe's nature or being, about its fabric. It is an ontological claim.

The theist simply gets the scientist to 'agree' that it is a rational universe without specifying the two different meanings, and then lays out the following argument: The universe's rational nature (ie its fabric) reflects and is caused and upheld by the rational nature of God (whatever that may mean, given that an omniscient being already knows all conclusions and therefore never has to reason toward them). The universe's supposed rational nature (in the ontological sense) only is so because it is given by God.

The response is twofold: (1) point out the substitution of meaning described above; (2) make clear that believing we may be able to understand some phenomenon by use of reason does not mean the phenomenon must be rational in its nature. Belief that we can understand black holes, for example, does not make black holes rational entities. In fact, the only 'things' which it is strictly correct to describe as being rational in their nature are the rules of logic and mathematics.

The point is illustrated by the claim that humans are rational beings. This, properly understood, is simply a claim that (some of the time) we use our brains to reason things out. But it is often misunderstood to be saying something more, ie that our very nature is 'rational'. This misunderstanding is often said to support the notion that we are made in the image of God.

Other Comments by smithyboy

20. Comment #83252 by Davinci on October 29, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Who says the universe is rational?
Why is the universe supposedly rational?
What evidence is there that the universe uses reason?

Other Comments by Davinci

21. Comment #84384 by anonquick on November 2, 2007 at 12:38 am

Be humble - admit this relate the the origins problem, so say 'I don't know'.

Tactical retreat. Sacrifice No God for a Deistic God (for the purpose of the Debate), then get the opposition defend why they think their man-made God has anything to do with it.

Push the core-tenet: Your God is man-made, a fictional character.

Other Comments by anonquick

22. Comment #85045 by Elcristoph on November 4, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Ah the god of the gaps, first cause argument, I would just say that the Universe was around LONG before life on this planet developed so the constants of the universe don't work around us, we work around them, also to imply a majestic design is also false the universe is a chaotic place with collisions and explosions happening all the time, the idea that a god created this for us is like comparing god to a kid next to a ant hill with a magnifying glass. Also for any system to maintain itself would have to work to natural laws, as mentioned earlier for anything to exist it has to work within certain constants otherwise it wouldn't be able to exist as it wouldn't be stable. I remember watching a documentary on this talking about how "Nothing" is unstable as it is unable to maintain itself because theres nothing to maintain it, now as far as the energy or reaction that caused there t be something Ive heard of string theory which basically talks about the reasons why Gravity is so weak compared to the other forces, it provides a promising explanation for the origins of the big bang, no doubt if it is explained we'll get the usual...What caused that...I MEAN COME ON, for the past thousand years science has explained away so many of the strongest arguments for god and now the only ones they can use are the "Gaps" and "First Cause"...

then theres the idea that if these constants were different that we wouldn't be here, Id argue that they may be right, but as I mentioned before as we developed in this universe we would naturally work within its constants. I suppose a comparison would be taking a animal that lives in the ocean depths and bringing it up to sea level, without a pressurized tank it wouldn't survive yet it works perfectly well in its own environment.

Sorry about the rant in the middle
Chris

Other Comments by Elcristoph

23. Comment #85054 by Goldy on November 4, 2007 at 5:57 pm

Say a creator did exist. Would it consider itself a god? Or merely a creating force? Would this creator have a god or even a supervisor of its own.
Someone once wrote to a paper about the conversations of goldfish in a bowl - silly point but got me thinking, though along the lines of Douglas Adams. What if there is a creation process. What if theists are....sort of right but have over-inflated the importance of this creator.
As it is, there is no rationalism so far detected in the universe, any more than there is a rational explanation of why trees grow in the shape that they do or the path water takes on a waxed and inclined surface. Maybe one day there'll be a mathematical explanation, but til then, I'll just wait and see with my sceptical mind...

Other Comments by Goldy

24. Comment #104796 by shigglebiddy on December 29, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Any universe can appear as if it has a creator, whether it is orderly or not. If the universe was chaotic, appearing to follow no 'laws' at all, then a creator who was in a bad temper when he created it or an angry creator could be hypothesized. Even if the universe was totally rational (which begs the question of how an unthinking object can use reason), would the God of the Bible be the logical conclusion as to who created it?

The 'laws' that the universe follows are not stated or carved in stone, they are merely observations we have made regarding how the universe works.

Other Comments by shigglebiddy

25. Comment #176689 by powerboy on May 7, 2008 at 9:40 pm

This argument is made as if we didn't know the Universe is destined for destruction. The Universe is not "rational", rather we have observed the Universe and understand why certain events within it occur, which in turn allows us to develop rational explanations for things we see. That is not to say that the Universe is rational. Suicide isn't rational. It is the opposite. It is, at its root, the most irrational action one could take. However, if someone chooses to commit suicide, and does it by overdosing on medication, a police detective would be able to determine how the suicide was committed. He would be able to determine how a completely irrational event unfolded. He would, in essence, rationalize an irrational situation. Family members might also try to rationalize it by making the case that the man was distressed. It is still an irrational, but sometimes emotionally necessary action.

The Universe doesn't operate according to any rational logic. Everything that happens is a direct consequential result of its origins. Black holes exist because a star died that was so massive, when it collapsed it caused that region of space to become so dense that the subsequent gravity produced doesn't allow anything to escape. We can make sense of it, but it doesn't make what we are observing rational at all. This star, which would eventually produce the black hole, came from gas left behind from the big bang. Again, there is no rational logic with which the universe operates. There is only cause and effect. What the original cause was, we don't know. What we can be sure of is that if scientists don't know, theologians don't come close to knowing.

Other Comments by powerboy