Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Revoltingest]

Not a fair comparison I feel.
You are suggesting there that either you believe in God or a material way.

No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm pointing out the differences in ability to make testable predictions ("usefulness") in one approach (science), but not the other (faith).

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

Thanks for the links.
I like this quote:
''This further can be explained up as the vacuum simmered with energy, such as dark energy, vacuum energy, the inflation field or the Higgs field much similar to water present in the pot.''

So much for the ''nothing''.

You did anothe edit I think

 

[Revoltingest]

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

I don't claim that "god did it" isn't an explanation. I only claim that it isn't a powerful one in the sense of having scientific rigor & predictive value.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

were you always atheist/ agnostic, before? I was the same age funnily enough, and likewise I don't feel I have all the answers, I'm primarily just skeptical of atheism now, so I'm pretty open to ideas. If nothing else, atheism was a much simpler/easier belief to have- it didn't ask as many questions! But it didn't answer enough either

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm pointing out the differences in ability to make testable predictions ("usefulness") in one approach (science), but not the other (faith).

Don't see how that fit the original post... anyway, no matter, Faith by the way is based on proof, and that proof is within, the faith is the evidence of that proof. I know you won't accept it, but I have to correct you

 

[Sapiens]

Why would you only see sixes? If the dice has a billion sides, each one has a number, and they are not all sixes. But we want a six, and a six is the only one that produces life.... hence the fine tuning of this universe

Because your wearing blinders.

 

[Revoltingest]

were you always atheist/ agnostic, before? I was the same age funnily enough, and likewise I don't feel I have all the answers, I'm primarily just skeptical of atheism now, so I'm pretty open to ideas. If nothing else, atheism was a much simpler/easier belief to have- it didn't ask as many questions! But it didn't answer enough either

Atheism is great because we've no scripture to study or memorize.

 

[Yerda]

We make interesting points to discuss, but does anyone ever change their mind I wonder? Or do we come here with preconceived ideas that are not going to be shaken.

I've found it takes a very long time (for me). I have, on a couple of occasions, been quickly shaken out of an idea by a clear exposition of a counter view or by being shown the absurdities of what I have assumed. In general it's more like a sinking in. If you're right on these matters, Robert, I'll probably thank you for it in about five years.

I still fail, however, to see how such a complex thing as the universe could come into being as it is, with all its stars and planets, and us, and all the commodities that are on this planet, just waiting to be exploited by us, so called, intelligent humans. Sounds way to contrived to me.

Well, first you have to accept that humans are adapted to this place and not the other way around.

We are made out of atoms because anything that persists over time must be stable and atoms are capable of forming stable bonds which is why there is so many structures made out of atoms.

Isn't extraordinary that we live on a planet covered in the most vital of material for our survival? Well, no. We use water because it has particular properties and is incredibly abundant. Maybe life can't arise withouit water. That would explain we we live on a watery planet.

We use oxygen for similar reasons. Life can survive without oxygen but it is pretty useful stuff. Before there was oxygen, life didn't use it, and infact it was massively toxic to early life on Earth.

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!

It would be that way because animals with the facial structure we have were more successful than differing animals. There became more of them and we descended from them.

 

[Robert.Evans]

were you always atheist/ agnostic, before? I was the same age funnily enough, and likewise I don't feel I have all the answers, I'm primarily just skeptical of atheism now, so I'm pretty open to ideas. If nothing else, atheism was a much simpler/easier belief to have- it didn't ask as many questions! But it didn't answer enough either

There are two ways, I think, to explain who we are with titles, Atheist, Agnostic, Ignostic, Theist.

They can be used one of two ways: if within the subject, you can check on line, I won't bore you, but if outside of the subject, and therefore of the world, I would say I was ignostic. Ignostic, if you don't know, is a play on the word ''ignorant''. That was me. I knew nothing at all. In the drop of a hat, I knew there was a God.... knock me down with a feather. Of course, the woman I was speaking to at the time, I did not tell.... i didn't want to look like an idiot...haha. This is the UK you know, not Middle East.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

Lemaitre? that he wasn't out to prove his faith, was the whole point- he found truth objectively, which happende to very much support the prediction of theism.
you have to acknowledge your faith to separate it from science.

multiverse, M theory etc in stark contrast are atheist theories explicitly fashioned to 'make God redundant' and utterly beyond the inconvenience of scientific scrutiny

 

[Robert.Evans]

Greatest moment of my Life!!!

 

[Sapiens]

Don't see how that fit the original post... anyway, no matter, Faith by the way is based on proof, and that proof is within, the faith is the evidence of that proof. I know you won't accept it, but I have to correct you

Wait a minute.

Faith is base on proof.

The proof is within.

Faith is the evidence of that proof.

It is not a matter of my not accepting it, no one with even a high school course in logic would accept that, the syllogism does not work.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't see how that fit the original post... anyway, no matter, Faith by the way is based on proof, and that proof is within, the faith is the evidence of that proof. I know you won't accept it, but I have to correct you

Proof of how the universe works is in how you feel? Nah, I find that method too unreliable. Religions have been using that for innumerable millennia, & got nowhere with it. But then along came the scientific method, and lo....our understanding improved greatly. No longer is the Earth only 10K years old. No longer is disease caused by witches or evil spirits. No longer is Earth the center of the universe. Scripture just doesn't yield such powerful explanations regarding the natural world.
Of course, it utterly fails to address the supernatural. That's for you guys to use your faith.

 

[Yerda]

multiverse, M theory etc in stark contrast are atheist theories explicitly fashioned to 'make God redundant' and utterly beyond the inconvenience of scientific scrutiny

This is silly. Physical theories are built by people people trying to fit the observations into the puzzle.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ta!...

[/QUOTE]
Now you're starting to sound like me! LOL!

Okay. I'm actually with you with almost everything.

The thing I got stuck on in this discussion was more about the word "intelligence". It's a problem for me to use that as a descriptive term for the ground of all being, the substrate of existence, etc. Intelligence, consciousness, and all these terms all are built upon a concept and understanding of things that are temporal and spatial. The Ground is not. The source of an intelligence and conscious universe is in itself something else, something more, something less, who knows, but not the same, so the words don't really mean anything to describe it.

And yes, God is all this, and also that which is not this.

In the end, I think we have pretty much the same image of God, universe, existence, etc, but we just use our descriptive words differently. And I think that sometimes this is the real difference between religions, not what they really deep down believe, but how they describe their belief. So our discussions will end up more about the use of the words than the thoughts we have in our minds.

Anyway, to go back to the original key point of discussion for me here is that "fine tuning" doesn't prove intelligence behind it since I believe it doesn't have to be tuned this way or that way to exist or produce life, and also, "intelligence" would be a misleading word to describe what the source is of our existence.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I've found it takes a very long time (for me). I have, on a couple of occasions, been quickly shaken out of an idea by a clear exposition of a counter view or by being shown the absurdities of what I have assumed. In general it's more like a sinking in. If you're right on these matters, Robert, I'll probably thank you for it in about five years.

Haha.. good

Well, first you have to accept that humans are adapted to this place and not the other way around.

We are made out of atoms because anything that persists over time must be stable and atoms are capable of forming stable bonds which is why there is so many structures made out of atoms.

Isn't extraordinary that we live on a planet covered in the most vital of material for our survival? Well, no. We use water because it has particular properties and is incredibly abundant. Maybe life can't arise withouit water. That would explain we we live on a watery planet.

We use oxygen for similar reasons. Life can survive without oxygen but it is pretty useful stuff. Before there was oxygen, life didn't use it, and infact it was massively toxic to early life on Earth.

It would be that way because animals with the facial structure we have were more successful than differing animals. There became more of them and we descended from them.

To the last part: it is all well and good to say they were more successful, that is already clear, but the question remains, as of the bird question earlier, why would such random mutations occur in the first place in order that NS could act on it? This for me is a BIG problem. I see it as luck if an atheist answer, evolving consciousness if I explain it.

 

[Yerda]

Wait a minute.

Faith is base on proof.

The proof is within.

Faith is the evidence of that proof.

It is not a matter of my not accepting it, no one with even a high school course in logic would accept that, the syllogism does not work.

I think he means that the evidence is found by direct experience.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Atheism is great because we've no scripture to study or memorize.

Proverbs 18:15

 

[Revoltingest]

Lemaitre?

He used science, not religion, to arrive at the idea of back holes. He wasn't the first, btw, but his significant contribution was in using GR to fully flesh out the physics of black holes. He employed physics, not scripture in this work.
Note:
I'm not dissing believers by saying none practice science. Certainly, they too see the explanatory power of scientific theories, & they choose to adopt this approach.


you have to acknowledge your faith to separate it from science.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes. But God's can die, hence the resurrection.

He doesn't exist ''within'' it as such. He is it, as he is all other universes and worlds. There 'physical' construct will be differnet to ours as all calculations will form one way or another. They may not even be detectable by us at all. This is our realm. Expanding consciousness replicates and divides and forms other higher-physical forms, one of them is ours, and can be seen as lower

Have you read "God's Debris" by Scott Adams? (The author of Dilbert comics) If you haven't, I think you find it interesting based on your post here.