G-d and Design

This post on knowing there’s a G-d was written as a dialogue between two people, Reuven and Simon, to make it quicker to write and to allow for poorly written arguments.

Reuven: The Torah begins with “In the Beginning, G-d created the heavens and the earth.” The Rambam began the first chapter of Mishnah Torah with the mitzvah to “know that there is a G-d” as it says “I am Hashem, your G-d”. The second chapter begins with the mitzvah to love and fear G-d. The Rambam explains the way to love G-d is to study G-d’s wondrous creations, and to see the infinite wisdom that will cause awe and love of G-d.
Avraham was able to look at the universe, realize there’s a G-d and reach the highest levels of loving G-d. He realized there had to be a “First Cause” and saw that there had to be a Designer.

Simon: You’re quoting the Rambam and Avraham to show studying science is a way to know G-d!? Their science was wrong, its conclusions would have been wrong too. And there’s no point in proving things from current science, since it’s always changing.

Reuven: We may be getting more and more knowledge, but that just shows more and more design. It doesn’t in any way show that earlier evidence of design was wrong. In earlier times, people were able to see the obvious design just from the external factors, by observing the sun and moon, the wind and rain, and the plants and animals. Now we understand (somewhat) the physics that allow the stars to exist, the perfect balance on Earth that allows it to function, and the amazing complexity of biological organisms that make them function. We can then recognize design even more, but even if we just know the end results, we also can. A person who uses a computer can tell quite clearly that the computer was designed and can appreciate it. If the person opens up the computer and studies the CPU, the hard drive or the programming, he sees even more how great the design of the computer is and he can appreciate it more. Science shows design even more and allows us to see actual proof of creation, so it’s not just a philosophical argument.

Simon: Fine, the universe is like a computer, but you still can’t prove design from science. If scientific knowledge made someone realize there’s design, no scientist would be an atheist. Since there are so many scientists who deny design, it’s not a good proof. You sound like those who say the earth is flat and animals spontaneously generate. They just say the scientists are stupid, evil heretics.

Reuven: I’m not denying that there’s free will. There is definitely liberty for someone to deny design, people are biased. Avraham was alone in his generation in recognizing the design in the universe. Everyone else thought there were various forces running the universe. There was a sun-god, a rain-god, some animal gods and many more. They believed there were many human-like gods, which was easier to imagine than an All-Powerful G-d and it had came with less moral restrictions. But Avraham was able to recognize that polytheism was wrong. He realized the sun and the rain and the animals were a designed system, and Someone had to have designed them.
It was far more difficult for Avraham to reject the polytheism and decide on a new theory of monotheism than it is for us. Just like we can understand Newton’s laws without being as smart as Newton, we can know there is one G-d without being as great as Avraham, the Rambam or Newton; they did some of the thinking for us.
Nowadays, we also see far greater complexity. Polytheism has been disproved by the unity shown in the laws of the universe. No one can believe in a wind god or a sun god when we know the principles behind them. (That’s why Newton rejected the Trinity after discovering the laws of the universe.) But the desire to only believe in physical things and to be free from restrictive morals still exists. That’s why there’s atheism. The scientist decides to only believe in physical things, so he rejects the idea of a G-d. He is forced to rely on Darwinian Evolution to explain the undeniable complexity of the Universe. Even if Darwinian evolution was a good theory, it still shouldn’t help the atheist. The end-result shows so much design that the process that made it happen clearly had a designer.
What about the fact that creation is proven since we can detect the big-bang? The scientist also has explanations. This universe could have sprouted from another which in turn could have come from another, similar to the infinite-pile-of-turtles theory. Or maybe the universe expands and then starts shrinking, crunches together and then has another big-bang (this theory has been disproved).
The scientist agrees that the universe appears to show design, he just claims he can explain it. We accept the scientific facts, but point out his explanation isn’t satisfactory nor does it help his claim. This is very different from denying scientific facts.

Simon: That was rather rambling and didn’t explain it very well.