Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Koldo]

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

The watchmaker argument stands beaten even if the universe is later found to be the creation of a god.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

A scientists once explained why are face is the way it is. Ever thought about it? The answer went something like this~~ The eyes are above the nose which is above the mouth, for a very good reason. When we pick up food to eat, we see the food come to us, and then smell it before it goes in the mouth, thus don't eat anything that is bad. Even the tongue plays its part before we swallow. ~~
Again, too contrived. Why would it be that way? Evolution is no answer, as it only gives the mechanism of how it arrived at that state. But why? Why would it even have such possibilities in its arsenal in the first place? That is what fascinates me!

I think you get to the crux of the matter here Robert,- 'why'? in that purpose, desire, intent, has a power of explanation that 'nature' or 'automated systems' never can. and that's a purely objective, unambiguous observation, regardless of which answer we may prefer

a curious child can create more with a pile of Legos in 10 minutes than a rock tumbler can in a trillion years.

If a gambler throws winning dice every time, we'd be crazy not to suspect cheating. not because chance is impossible, or the complexity of the game, but because of the significance of the sequence- the payoff, it's ultimately the motive that provides a better explanation

In the case of the gambler- the motive which provides the explanation is money, for God? well what's the greatest motive that can exist in a conscious mind, far greater than mere money or even our own lives? Love... what better ultimate explanation could there ever be?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The watchmaker argument stands beaten even if the universe is later found to be the creation of a god.

well don't keep me in suspense!.. what's your argument against it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There's power in saying "God did it."? N

a power of explanation

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you get to the crux of the matter here Robert,- 'why'? in that purpose, desire, intent, has a power of explanation that 'nature' or 'automated systems' never can. and that's a purely objective, unambiguous observation, regardless of which answer we may prefer

Power? Objectivity? No, no...to understand how physical laws & matter result in organization simply by their own interaction is real power. Consider the oft trotted out simple analogy of Boyle's law (behavior of ideal gases). One could simply say that god makes all these individual molecules behave in an organized way. But it's far more powerful (& interesting) to see that statistical mechanics explains this emergent property.

 

[Revoltingest]

a power of explanation

You responded to a post which somehow got posted without my intending to. I quickly deleted it, & posted a complete version....but not quickly enuf apparently.

But to your response, where is the "power" of saying that a god did it? It cannot be tested & it makes no predictions. One could just as easily say.....
- The Moon spirit did it.
- A collection of 11,370,582 gods did it.
- It's all a computer simulation, so nothing exists except our being programmed to believe the illusion.
This things are also neither provable nor disprovable, & thus, they offer no explanatory power.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

dvds, players, and TVs create movies simply by their own interaction, and it's a very interesting process too.

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' (Galileo)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You responded to a post which somehow got posted without my intending to. I quickly deleted it, & posted a complete version....but not quickly enuf apparently.

sorry, too much coffee!

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

Do you really mean that? I find that hard to believe. Even if we ignore the cement that would have to mix, now on earth do you think that it could land in the right bond and with a cavity and an inner block wall, on a foundation, level, true, even if without a roof. You are not serious I hope. That is the dumb argument of: Given enough time monkeys will type out a sonnet. No way! They're monkeys! haha

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

I for one cannot have such a possibility as some other possibility.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I think you get to the crux of the matter here Robert,- 'why'? in that purpose, desire, intent, has a power of explanation that 'nature' or 'automated systems' never can. and that's a purely objective, unambiguous observation, regardless of which answer we may prefer

Exactly. Am I so glad to hear your voice

a curious child can create more with a pile of Legos in 10 minutes than a rock tumbler can in a trillion years.

Had to quote, just for that.. haha. Quite true!

If a gambler throws winning dice every time, we'd be crazy not to suspect cheating. not because chance is impossible, or the complexity of the game, but because of the significance of the sequence- the payoff, it's ultimately the motive that provides a better explanation

In the case of the gambler- the motive which provides the explanation is money, for God? well what's the greatest motive that can exist in a conscious mind, far greater than mere money or even our own lives? Love... what better ultimate explanation could there ever be?

Exactly again. The point of the gambler says what I think of the fine tuning argument. As others wiser than me have pointed out, 'outrageous things do not happen, not in this universe'. And that is the point I think. It is fine to say it might in another, but we are talking about this one!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You responded to a post which somehow got posted without my intending to. I quickly deleted it, & posted a complete version....but not quickly enuf apparently.

But to your response, where is the "power" of saying that a god did it? It cannot be tested & it makes no predictions. One could just as easily say.....
- The Moon spirit did it.
- A collection of 11,370,582 gods did it.
- It's all a computer simulation, so nothing exists except our being programmed to believe the illusion.
This things are also neither provable nor disprovable, & thus, they offer no explanatory power.

all those would come under intelligent design/creator, i.e. 'God' by the most common definition

It made the profound prediction that- contrary to academic consensus, our universe did in fact have a specific creation event . check
Also that as primary beneficiaries of creation, we are alone in the universe as sentient beings- which still holds true despite an ear on an entire galaxy

 

[Robert.Evans]

You responded to a post which somehow got posted without my intending to. I quickly deleted it, & posted a complete version....but not quickly enuf apparently.

But to your response, where is the "power" of saying that a god did it? It cannot be tested & it makes no predictions. One could just as easily say.....
- The Moon spirit did it.
- A collection of 11,370,582 gods did it.
- It's all a computer simulation, so nothing exists except our being programmed to believe the illusion.
This things are also neither provable nor disprovable, & thus, they offer no explanatory power.

They can still hold explanatory power.... it just does not mean you have to believe in it, if you feel there is not sufficient evidence for it. But as an explanation, it is just that. Your explanation is either it is natural and luck, or you don't know, which is the one you favour. And yet in favouring that one, you have to accept the first, which you won't

 

[Yerda]

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

Time travel.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Exactly. Am I so glad to hear your voice

Had to quote, just for that.. haha. Quite true!

Exactly again. The point of the gambler says what I think of the fine tuning argument. As others wiser than me have pointed out, 'outrageous things do not happen, not in this universe'. And that is the point I think. It is fine to say it might in another, but we are talking about this one!

yes, it seems we are on the same page here so far! which is not always the case even amongst 'theists' - out of interest, what was your background, upbringing regarding religion? if I may ask..

 

[Revoltingest]

They can still hold explanatory power.... it just does not mean you have to believe in it, if you feel there is not sufficient evidence for it. But as an explanation, it is just that. Your explanation is either it is natural and luck, or you don't know, which is the one you favour. And yet in favouring that one, you have to accept the first, which you won't

By explanatory power, I see a model (aka theory) which can be tested & makes predictions. Consider the difference between these 2 schools of thought regarding an analogous controversy...the age of planets:
1) God did it:
James Ussher studied biblical genealogies to determine the Earth was created about 4000 BCE. This sheds no light on the ages of other planets, stars, galaxies or the universe.

2) Material world view:
Cosmology, geology, fluid mechanics, rheology & other sciences put the Earth's age at about 4.6B years. These sciences (& theories) have predictive value applicable to other planets & stellar objects.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

By explanatory power, I see a model (aka theory) which can be tested & makes predictions

but, multiverse theory, string theory, M theory... they all get waivers?

 

[Robert.Evans]

yes, it seems we are on the same page here so far! which is not always the case even amongst 'theists' - out of interest, what was your background, upbringing regarding religion? if I may ask..

In the UK... At age 41 he opened my eyes. Went to Church for a while, that seemed to be the thing to do, then left as they were not answering my questions... and I had aplenty!
My ideas now would probably make you fall off your chair... haha.... but though we will not agree (as you say) on all things, at least you and I believe. Anyone who believes will not die, merely enter another realm. It is all cyclic, much like the Hindu idea of reincarnation. (see what I mean) Do not believe is to lose knowledge, knowledge of Self..... I will stop there I think... haha

 

[Robert.Evans]

By explanatory power, I see a model (aka theory) which can be tested & makes predictions. Consider the difference between these 2 schools of thought regarding an analogous controversy...the age of planets:
1) God did it:
James Ussher studied biblical genealogies to determine the Earth was created about 4000 BCE. This sheds no light on the ages of other planets, stars, galaxies or the universe.

2) Material world view:
Cosmology, geology, fluid mechanics, rheology & other sciences put the Earth's age at about 4.6B years. These sciences (& theories) have predictive value applicable to other planets & stellar objects.

Not a fair comparison I feel.
You are suggesting there that either you believe in God or a material way. I don't have a problem with science. If science is taken as fact, I look to see why I don't understand scripture. Science, as history etc, fits when understood. It is just another part of the story of everything.

As for the few thousands years old earth, it does not say that, his idea is his own, not scriptural. Reading into things is fine, if right. Not a problem though unless one decides to use that to make, I don't know, an A b-mb or summit... haha

 

[Revoltingest]

but, multiverse theory, string theory, M theory... they all get waivers?

No, they should be tested. And scientists work feverishly to both bunk & debunk these theories.
Experiments done in support of the theory of Multiverse | Maine News
Multiverse Controversy Heats Up over Gravitational Waves - Scientific American

Now, contrast this with the work of those who believe a supreme intelligence is behind it all. There work is......uh......well, I can't find them making any predictions predicated on their assumption, & doing any experimental testing. They've naught but inadequate probabilistic arguments against materialism.

 

[Robert.Evans]

By explanatory power, I see a model (aka theory) which can be tested & makes predictions. Consider the difference between these 2 schools of thought regarding an analogous controversy...the age of planets:
1) God did it:
James Ussher studied biblical genealogies to determine the Earth was created about 4000 BCE. This sheds no light on the ages of other planets, stars, galaxies or the universe.

2) Material world view:
Cosmology, geology, fluid mechanics, rheology & other sciences put the Earth's age at about 4.6B years. These sciences (& theories) have predictive value applicable to other planets & stellar objects.

Anyway, an explanation is still an explanation. It does not cease to be one becasue you don't accept it. So there! haha