Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Sapiens]

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

It's a busted construct regardless of what he meant to mean.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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

They are used that way though... Dawkins has done it

 

[Revoltingest]

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

Aye, if it were only atheists trying to disprove god, then what accounts for all the believers who also practice science? Are they part of the big atheist conspiracy?

 

[Yerda]

I see it as luck if an atheist answer, evolving consciousness if I explain it.

Then you would have to say that every mutation is the result of consciousness. This seems like a massive and unjustified assumption. If you put DNA in a test tube and provide the materials for it to replicate it will do so, and it will mutate. At random. Are you saying God is tinkering with our test tubes? All of science falls apart in that case.

 

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for the link... interesting.

Was it planned before? Not so much planned, as evolved within the Source of everything. When we separated we became that abstact concept, and created (eventually) everything we see. So yes, you HAD TO BE born. Now is that not great! YOU had to be born. Why? You are part of God. Is that not neat! Could it have turned out any other way? Yes. But it won't, even with all our freewill, because we always follow what has gone before.

I can agree with you there.

I don't think though that the odds of a human can be compared with the one off universe. I guess that is the many worlds or multiverse idea though.

Of course it can't, because we don't know how to compute a odds for a universe, besides, the odds for me existing in this universe would have to be multiplied with the odds for the universe to be a complete odds estimate of my existence. The odds me or you existing is a lot worse than the odds for the universe.

BTW, have you noticed that if you answer a few posts, your comments are put at the bottom of the page ( which is good) but then you might find the same post you commented on later on, on another page. Thus sometimes I am reading the same one, or I miss some.... rather annoying. Any ideas? (why am I asking you? haha... what are the odds of that... you started it! )

Yeah. It's a bit confusing at times. Sometimes I discover that I answer posts that I already responded to weeks ago and such... I'm such a nitwit at times.

 

[Koldo]

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

The watchmaker argument states that since a watch is complex it must have been designed.
This, however, requires a comparison between the watch and something else that is not complex ( like rocks ).
Something complex like a watch couldn't exist as a mere accident because it is too complex.
Then it concludes by saying that since complexity is sufficient to assert that the watch was designed, the same can apply to the universe.
And, therefore, the universe being so complex as it is was designed.

However, if the universe was designed, then everything on it ( including rocks ) was designed.
Since everything was designed, we don't know anything that wasn't designed.
Since we don't know anything that wasn't designed, then we don't know what are the differences between something that was designed and something that wasn't designed.
Therefore, complexity was an arbitrary parameter used to determine whether something was designed.
Thus, self-refuting.

 

[Revoltingest]

Proverbs 18:15

Yet another thing I needn't read.

I have a friend who works for me on Saturdays. He can't work Sundays, cuz that's when he goes to church to hear sermons, & then goes to Bible study. He says there's so much to learn, & that it's difficult because there are so many interpretations.

I sleep in on Sundays.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

Hmmm..... okay, though it can show some things. But we must recall that he is hidden as all valuables are.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

Yes it's ultimately personal, and perhaps something a person keeps to themselves a little more in the UK than in the US? though ironically, don't they still pray and sing hymns in state schools?

 

[George-ananda]

The universe apparently does not 'need' intelligence because materialists have put together theories on how the universe and how complex life came to be without including any intelligence. And as no one can prove them wrong, we can't say the universe 'needs' intelligence.

I personally strongly believe though that there is intelligence in the universe. This is just my personal position from consideration of all the evidence and argumentation. In fact intelligence is the only thing; Brahman alone is real; He separates Himself from Himself into finite forms and returns Himself to Himself.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Sure. But if the structure of existence is a fractal (like Robert here likes to talk about, and I can agree with), the "connection" could end up being something infinite. A fractal has a finite area (order), but an infinite edge (chaos). When we see different kinds of physical laws/rules/phenomenon they're just the emergent apparent pattern in the area of the infinite structure. What binds one area together with the other? A finite space between, but infinite regression still. I'm not sure I can explain how I visualize this without having a whiteboard in front of me, or even if then...

 

[Revoltingest]

The watchmaker argument states that since a watch is complex it must have been designed.
This, however, requires a comparison between the watch and something else that is not complex ( like rocks ).
Something complex like a watch couldn't exist as a mere accident because it is too complex.
Then it concludes by saying that since complexity is sufficient to assert that the watch was designed, the same can apply to the universe.
And, therefore, the universe being so complex as it is was designed.

However, if the universe was designed, then everything on it ( including rocks ) was designed.
Since everything was designed, we don't know anything that wasn't designed.
Since we don't know anything that wasn't designed, then we don't know what are the differences between something that was designed and something that wasn't designed.
Therefore, complexity was an arbitrary parameter used to determine whether something was designed.
Thus, self-refuting.

This relates to the testability of a god's creating & running all things. If everything is the god's plan, then whatever happens is part of it. Such a thing cannot be disproven, & therefore cannot be proven.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Proof of how the universe works is in how you feel? Nah, I find that method too unreliable.

No objection. Boy me and you like to misunderstand one another.eh!

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.

It is in one sense, but not very good as an explanation, only as a deeper understanding that I won't trouble you with. Saves me thinking anyway.

No longer is Earth the center of the universe.

That was a church idea. Not in scripture. Man is fallible.

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.

It is gnosis which explains that. Science is part of the everything, it has its place just as history. It is true that the church did a lot or harm, but so did the secular. It is said my D McCulock that they burnt more at the stake than the church....way to go...woohoo... in your face. But the 60s had atheist in Russian and Romania that killed and tortuted, so not necessarily a good idea just because it is not the church. Science is a different matter, and it is good at working things out that are physical, but it is limited.

 

[Yerda]

The universe apparently does not 'need' intelligence because materialists have put together theories on how the universe and how complex life came to be without including any intelligence. And as no one can prove them wrong, we can't say the universe 'needs' intelligence.

I personally strongly believe though that there is intelligence in the universe. This is just my personal position from consideration of all the evidence and argumentation. In fact intelligence is the only thing; Brahman alone is real; He separates Himself from Himself into finite forms and returns Himself to Himself.

I'm somewhat open to some kind of 'mind' being a fundamental part of reality. Or underlying reality. I still think we need science to uncover the story being told.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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

The proof is within and that is the spirit of God. No one will believe that unless you already have it. etc etc

 

[George-ananda]

I'm somewhat open to some kind of 'mind' being a fundamental part of reality. Or underlying reality. I still think we need science to uncover the story being told.

We agree on the value of science. Science describes what things look like from a physical-only perspective. Beyond that is not the purview of science at this time,

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The fluke argument states that since nature operates on chance it must have originated by chance
This, however, requires a comparison between chance and something else that is not chance ( like a watch).
Something simple like a rock couldn't exist on purpose because it is too natural
Then it concludes by saying that since being natural is sufficient to assert that the rock is there by chance, the same can apply to the universe.
And, therefore, the universe being so natural as it is was fluked into existence

However, if the universe was a fluke, then everything in it ( including the watch) was ultimately a fluke
Since everything was a fluke, we don't know anything that wasn't fluked
Since we don't know anything that wasn't fluked, then we don't know what are the differences between something that was fluked and something that wasn't fluked
Therefore, being natural was an arbitrary parameter used to determine whether something was fluked
Thus, self-refuting.


No wonder this argument doesn't sway anybody

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

their puzzle called ' how the universe got here accidentally', the pieces just aren't matching the picture on the box

 

[Koldo]

This relates to the testability of a god's creating & running all things. If everything is the god's plan, then whatever happens is part of it. Such a thing cannot be disproven, & therefore cannot be proven.

Pretty much. You can't prove nor disprove.

 

[Koldo]

The fluke argument states that since nature operates on chance it must have originated by chance
This, however, requires a comparison between chance and something else that is not chance ( like a watch).
Something simple like a rock couldn't exist on purpose because it is too natural
Then it concludes by saying that since being natural is sufficient to assert that the rock is there by chance, the same can apply to the universe.
And, therefore, the universe being so natural as it is was fluked into existence

However, if the universe was a fluke, then everything in it ( including the watch) was ultimately a fluke
Since everything was a fluke, we don't know anything that wasn't fluked
Since we don't know anything that wasn't fluked, then we don't know what are the differences between something that was fluked and something that wasn't fluked
Therefore, being natural was an arbitrary parameter used to determine whether something was fluked
Thus, self-refuting.


No wonder this argument doesn't sway anybody

What...?
Yes, it is no wonder.