Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Rick O'Shez]

No it is spiritually discerned.

I think you need to explain exactly what that means.

 

[Revoltingest]

You always seem to say that desire is the reason that we believe in God.

Oh, no....excessive desire is problematic, for both believer & non-believer. I wouldn't say it's "always" the cause of belief. But it's related for some.

And I don't think that ignorance is a wonderful thing. We asks questions of many things, this is just one.

It's wonderful in the sense that one should not feel discomfort for it. If there's something unknown, perhaps despite repeated investigation, one should not leap to erroneous 'knowledge' out of compulsion to be not ignorant.
It's my reason for identifying as an "ignorant atheist". I don't know anything about the possible gods in whom I disbelieve. I am comfortable with this ignorance.

Your questions are no different than mine, it is just yours are reflected more carnally (if I can put it that way)

I have less carnality going for me than in decades past though. And worry not....none of it is directed in your direction.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I know that. You are not answering the question.

I'm not sure what the question is.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm not sure what the question is.

I said:
How can something develop something it needs, before it needs it, to have it when it then needs it in the future? And what did it develop it for in the first place? If it was needed, then what did it do before it had it? And if it did not need it, then why develop it?

 

[Koldo]

sorry unfinished thought!

so... hence apparent chaos resulting in a functional order, does not suggest random accident, lack of intent in any way.

It does not, indeed. It is simply compatible.

the opposite argument can be made, since we have 100% verifiable examples of intelligently designed, highly organized systems appearing utterly chaotic at a low level. (software represented by 1's and 0s,- movies represented by tiny pits on a dvd)- It's difficult to directly identify the fingerprint of intelligence, because the intended end result has been coded and compressed far beyond direct translation.

Exactly like the singularity, accident or not, it was quite literally a highly compressed self extracting archive of information, composed in such a way as to develop our consciousness. And just like the software, we know that corrupting the tiniest piece of information in the universal constants would have crashed the entire system. All by chance? not impossible, I just think there are many less extraordinary explanations.

That's the watchmaker argument. Which has been beaten to a pulp.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Oh, no....excessive desire is problematic, for both believer & non-believer. I wouldn't say it's "always" the cause of belief. But it's related for some.

It's wonderful in the sense that one should not feel discomfort for it. If there's something unknown, perhaps despite repeated investigation, one should not leap to erroneous 'knowledge' out of compulsion to be not ignorant.
It's my reason for identifying as an "ignorant atheist". I don't know anything about the possible gods in whom I disbelieve. I am comfortable with this ignorance.

I have less carnality going for me than in decades past though. And worry not....none of it is directed in your direction.

as this is more generalised, I have no problem with it

 

[Revoltingest]

as this is more generalised, I have no problem with it

This is much too agreeable. At least call me a "poopy head" or something.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

How can something develop something it needs, before it needs it, to have it when it then needs it in the future? And what did it develop it for in the first place? If it was needed, then what did it do before it had it? And if it did not need it, then why develop it?

Natural selection is a messy process, full of trial and error.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Natural selection is a messy process, full of trial and error.

Which answers nothing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Which answers nothing.

It does if you understand it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It does if you understand it.

Haha..... fine. sounds like a cop out to me. It does answer what something is before it is that. How does it survive before it has what it needs? How does the car stop before it had brakes. Keep it simple, but answer, if you understand it.

 

[allright]

1 It assumes the existence of a typewriter created by a living intelligent being

2 It takes an already living creature to recognize the typewriter exists and to hit the keys

3 It assumes an already existing information system of an alphabet and words created by intelligent beings

4 The real question is how a pile of elements that do not know that they exist or that that anything else exists can unite to form living conscious beings who invent an information system, and a typewriter and write a play by accidentally bumping in to each other.

 

[metis]

Have you seen Primer? Or Pi? Both small budget and great.

I saw Pi and really liked it. What's Primer about?

 

[metis]

I thought relativity and quantum are the two domains that just won't play well together, but I could be wrong of course.

Yes, and that appears to quite possibly be the problem. However, we know they must connect because if they didn't there would be nothing.

 

[metis]

Yes the point is, and you said it, ELSEWHERE.... but not here! That is the fine tuning argument in a nutshell I feel

That's not the point I was making, which is that differing interreactions could hypothetically lead to life forms quite different than what we have here, plus that even the basic laws of physics may also differ from one part of our universe and/or between universes. Just because we're here working under one set of laws and conditions doesn't mean that this was the only possibility.

 

[metis]

In this physical realm, outragous things just don't happen.... unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, we have to assume something has put order into everything. Evolving consciousness explains that.

That simply is wrong. It's not true, and if it was true, then cosmologists and physicists should be the totally dedicated theists-- but they're generally not.

What you are doing is allowing your religious beliefs to drive how you look at science, and that's unfortunate because what one may base their beliefs on religiously is not the same process that we use in science.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That's not the point I was making, which is that differing interreactions could hypothetically lead to life forms quite different than what we have here, plus that even the basic laws of physics may also differ from one part of our universe and/or between universes. Just because we're here working under one set of laws and conditions doesn't mean that this was the only possibility.

Oh, I agree, but that was the point I was making

 

[Robert.Evans]

That simply is wrong. It's not true, and if it was true, then cosmologists and physicists should be the totally dedicated theists-- but they're generally not.

What you are doing is allowing your religious beliefs to drive how you look at science, and that's unfortunate because what one may base their beliefs on religiously is not the same process that we use in science.

When I say outrageous things in this universe/world, I mean like dropping bricks and expecting it to form a house. It does not happen. So why see it in other things.
I would not call them religious views as I don't class myself as religious.... but spiritually enlightened, yes..... Okay, perhaps that sounds pompous, but more truthful.

~~
I also think that science can only work of what it has evidence for in physical terms. That is okay... it would be hard to do it any other way. But there are scientists who think as I, even if not in exactly the same terms. One does not have to pronouce it in science terms though, as the two are separate, as they should be

 

[metis]

When I say outrageous things in this universe/world, I mean like dropping bricks and expecting it to form a house. It does not happen. So why see it in other things.

If it was done often enough, it could very well do as such. Remember, there's maybe many trillions times trillions of various reactions every millisecond, and since each entity has characteristics of some type, all sorts of new possibilities can exist.

However, this does not mean there can't be a theistic cause-- just that we should not assume that this is the only possibility.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It does not, indeed. It is simply compatible.



That's the watchmaker argument. Which has been beaten to a pulp.

yet keeps on ticking, the idea that the universe had a beginning was beaten to a pulp by atheists also,
'beatings' say more about those doing the beating than the truth