How can a person how claims to have intelligent thought dismiss the possibilty of a designed universe?

Eh the problem I see is that even if you could prove the universe were created, you haven't the slightest bit of evidence to whom created it.

Technically, a "designed" universe is possible. I don't claim otherwise.

But here's the thing: there's no evidence of "design." There's no NEED for "design." And there's no evidence of nor need of any "designer." So a "designed" universe, while technically possible, has a probability of zero, and no plausibility. So why should any intelligent person pretend otherwise?

"...which means 50/50 odds that the one we live in is one of design."

No, it doesn't. You clearly haven't got a clue how to calculate probabilities -- I suggest some high school pre-calculus classes for you.

"I am just sick of all the idiots I keep seeing on here saying there is no proof..."

Calling people you disagree with "idiots" is a fallacy (ad-hominem), and isn't a rational argument. And frankly, I don't care what you're "sick of." The way we move from "technically possible" to "yes, that's plausible, or even likely, or shown correct" is by evidence (not "proof"). There's no other way of determining if some idea or claim is valid or not, there's only evidence. If you don't like that, too bad -- that's your problem. But until evidence shows a claim to be correct, there's no reason to give it any merit whatsoever. You're the one who needs to "stop and think," my friend.

Your entire question is a logical fallacy.

We CANNOT presuppose that the universe was created - there is no proof.

We CANNOT presuppose that the universe came into existence by chance - there is no proof.

The only thing that we can logically do is explain the existence of the universe AS WE CURRENTLY understand it. That leaves room for improvement based on new evidence, and leaves out baseless assumptions.

That is the only intellectually honest way to make an objective analysis.

On Edit:

Joshua D said: I am just sick of all the idiots I keep seeing on here saying "there is no proof." these people are as narrow minded and ignorant as the religious zealots that they are attacking.

As to this, keep in mind that the person or group making the assertion assumes the burden of proof. The believers assume this burden by insisting that their creator is true. The atheist simply disagrees based on a lack of tangible, testable evidence.

Example:

Believer: My God is great and true.

Atheist: I don't believe you.

Who is the burden of proof on? The person who makes the assertion that their deity is great and true? Or the person that states that they don't believe the person making the assertion?

How can anyone who believes in a god-designed universe not be intelligent enough to question WHICH god designed it, when there have been thousands of gods worshipped for thousands of years. How could any intelligent person narrowmindedly follow the herd and claim that their god designed it all, when there is just as much possibility that a god who predated theirs by a few thousand years obviously was worshipped long before their god, and therefore much more likely to have created the universe than their johnny-come-lately deity, who is a ripoff of many other sun gods?

Your problem is in your first assumption based on your limited understanding of the evidence and the term "chance". From there, your argument is nothing more than "I'm clueless about physics so what I believe has to be true because I believe it is true."

While "design" is possible, there is no reason to think that it happened and the more we learn, the less likely it is.

How can you look at this universe, its physics, and the beings that inhabit this planet and say with a straight face that any being designed it? It's more like a dog's breakfast than anything. A god that would design such an ecosystem ought to be ashamed of himself.

Edit: SacHawk2.0 has some very good points, and I commend his answer to you. Take it to heart. Let me add one clarification: He who makes the *affirmative* claim has the burden of proof. The person who says "this is" must defend the assertion. The person who says "that is not" has no such burden. The reason is simple. A negative claim can be disproven by a single affirmative example while an affirmative claim cannot be proven by example, no matter how many.

It is pragmatic. It's not like any person has the time to go around entertaining every idea some nutjob comes up with about the universe. So we intelligently weed out the ones with no corroborating evidence.

i agree in part with what you are saying. intelligence does not guarantee wisdom, nor does it prove rational thought. an intelligent person can figure out the genome code and yet be a mass murderer, it doesn't mean he is going to advertise the truth among so many lies. especially if he owns a mansion and likes to rob tax payers of government subsidies, it still makes him a murderer and a criminal.

yes there is a God but i dont think a thousand people on this planet actually KNOW who God is.

ive never met God, but i do know that i have had an OBE and seen the glory of jesus christ. and i do know that an actual angelic type being appeared in my bedroom.

i was never really a brainwashed "idiot" i was raised without religion. i did believe in the bible! and what the message was, is that there is a God and we need to repent of sins. have faith, dont follow atheists, they are all either liars or brain washed themselves.

I just wanted to say: how can anyone claim to have intelligent thought when they defend a subjective issue such as God with such stubbornness, like a Child? You used logic, which is nice. However God is an opinion. No one is right. No one is wrong. To deny this simple statement is stupidity.

Gamma Ray Bursts.

People with intelligent thoughts do not see any signs of design in this universe. If there are no signs of design, why would an intelligent person assume it was designed?

If the universe was designed, it wasn't by the god of the Bible. That is because the cosmos that god created is not the universe we know of.

According to Ecclesiastes 1:5 the sun goes (hasteth) around the earth--as, of course, it must, since, according to Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, and 1 Chr 16:30, the earth does not move. And the earth cannot move because, according to 1 Samuel 2:8 and Ps 75:3, it is placed on pillars. And because it is placed on pillars, it has an underside and an upper side, as confirmed by Isaiah 40:22 which indicates that the earth is a circle--i.e., a flat disk.

That is also confirmed by Proverbs 8:27, which describes god as beginning the creation of the world when he "drew a circle on the face of the deep" (ESV), (the Hebrew word translated as “circle,” "compass, “ and “horizon” in the different Bibles is the same word used for circle in Isaiah 40:22).

(The Hebrew word translated as "circle" in Isaiah 40:22 is chuwg, which means "circle" not "sphere." Strong's Concordance: "circle"..."describe a circle." Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: "Circle...the earth conceived as a disc, Is 40:22." Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: "draw round, make a circle.")

Underneath the flat disk of the earth is the abyss, the bottomless pit, which is referred to several times in the Bible (ex. Rev. 9:1,2).

That is also what is being referred to in Job 26:7 when it says that the earth hangs over nothing. (The Hebrew word translated "upon" in the KJV also means "over.") The actual sphere of the earth in space is not "suspended' or "hanging" "over" or "upon" nothing. It is orbiting the sun at 66,700 miles per hour.

Several other verses in the Bible also indicate the earth is flat, such as Nebuchadnezzar's vision in Dan 4:10-11 (the tree could not be seen from all the earth if it were not flat). Dan 2:28 states that the visions of Nebuchadnezzar are from God, so the biblical god says the biblical earth is flat.

The original Hebrew word translated as firmament is raqiya, which is a noun derived from the Hebrew word raqa. That word is a verb meaning "to beat out," and is used in the bible in reference to beating out metal into plates or expanses of the metal (as in Exodus 39:3). So raqiya, as a noun, would literally mean "that which is beaten out."

The biblical firmament, or sky, is therefore a solid, beaten out expanse or vault set on the rim of the flat disk of the earth. That is confirmed in Job 37:18, which states:

"Can you beat out the vault of the skies as he does,

hard as a mirror of cast metal?" (New English Bible)

There, the Hebrew word translated as "beat out" (or "spread out" in other versions) is, as noted above, raqa.

That idea is also implied in verses such as Deut 4:32:

"Ask now about the former days, long before your time, from the day God created man on the earth; ask from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything so great as this ever happened, or has anything like it ever been heard of?" See also Ps 19:1-6, Isaiah 13:4-5, and Matt 24:31.

The "ends of heaven" would be the base of the vault of heaven where it rests on the rim of the disk of the earth. The "four corners [lit., ends] of the earth" (Job 37:3) refers to the same thing at the four cardinal directions.

The stars in the biblical cosmos are just lights set in the firmament. As mere lights in the sky, they will fall to the earth in the Last Days (Matt 24:29), which conflicts with finding that the actual stars are other suns and many times larger than the earth.

So, according to the Bible the earth is a flat, immovable disk, supported by pillars and covered with a solid vault of heaven, the rim of which is is resting on the perimeter of the disk of the earth, and the stars are just lights set in the vault of heaven.

That this is the correct view of the biblical cosmos is shown by the fact that it describes a structure with parts that are fully consistent with each other. That structural consistency indicates that it accurately represents the cosmos as conceived by the ancient Hebrews and as its writers incorporated that view in the Bible.

In addition, according to the Bible, earth is the centerpiece of creation and in the Last Days god will destroy the earth and the heavens as part of his plan for mankind. (2 Peter 3:10-13)

So, according to the Bible, the whole cosmos was created merely for the sake of the earth and its inhabitants—which is ridiculous.

All of which goes to show that the cosmos of the Bible does not exist, and therefore the god who created it does not exist.

.