Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Rick O'Shez]

Pretty much. You can't prove nor disprove.

Fair point. Like God, it's ultimately unknowable. People will believe what they want to believe.

 

[Koldo]

Honestly, I have no idea why so many people get so caught up with these arguments.
Imagine if we all actually agreed with their conclusions. If the argument was actually sound and valid.
That would at most justify the belief(s) of a.... deist ( no dogma included ). That's still a long shot from actually providing support for the specific god(s) most people believe in.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

we agree & that's why atheist theories eventually came around to the watch maker argument, there is no way around the staggering improbability of assembling our universe accidentally. hence the many multiverse theories- that it would require a practically infinite number of trials and errors to accidentally engineer the word we see around us.

The fine tuning of the universal constants alone is hardly a controversial observation nowadays, it's just a matter of how you account for it, an infinite number of monkeys at keyboards creating infinite meaningless universes along with this one.... or just an author. My money is on the latter.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It would be interesting to discuss whether the universe has a direction, without all the theist undercurrents.

 

[Koldo]

we agree & that's why atheist theories eventually came around to the watch maker argument, there is no way around the staggering improbability of assembling our universe accidentally. hence the many multiverse theories- that it would require a practically infinite number of trials and errors to accidentally engineer the word we see around us.

The fine tuning of the universal constants alone is hardly a controversial observation nowadays, it's just a matter of how you account for it, an infinite number of monkeys at keyboards creating infinite meaningless universes along with this one.... or just an author. My money is on the latter.

I have already explained why the multiverse is not required to explain our universe. You can read my posts on this topic.

 

[columbus]

Honestly, I have no idea why so many people get so caught up with these arguments.
Imagine if we all actually agreed with their conclusions. If the argument was actually sound and valid.
That would at most justify the belief(s) of a.... deist ( no dogma included ). That's still a long shot from actually providing support for the specific god(s) most people believe in.

This pretty much sums up my attitude. I came to the same conclusion as the OP years ago and realized I wasn't really an atheist but a deist. I am also sure that there is much more to reality than we are currently able to understand, so I usually add the qualifier agnostic to deist.

The difference between me and a theist is that I don't add supernatural stuff that I don't know about to Reality, like reincarnation and Inspired Scripture.

Tom

 

[Yerda]

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

I don't think you understand your own position never mind the one you think you oppose.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Now you're starting to sound like me! LOL!

I can't be all bad then, eh?

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

It's that ''almost'' which is the telling part heh heh

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.

The ground is not related to time?? How so. The ground at some point in time did not exist.

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

agreed

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.

Perhaps though in a deeper discussion, which is always difficult in type, we might differ more. The d-vil as they say is in the detail.... though usually in my case, the whole!

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.

The fine tuning argument is drawn from scientists not me. I find it of interest taht they would say such things. From my perspective, it seems obvious that everything is too complex to come about. The answer usually is that that is because you are 'expecting ' you etc. But 'we' do exist, so we can ask such questions.

I think THE Source is more an Existence and awareness of Self rather than anything else. What comes from that is what we call God, and is conscious. We are part of that, in phyical form, and we also had a part in developing that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have already explained why the multiverse is not required to explain our universe. You can read my posts on this topic.

you could read mine and Hawking's books on the topic also, the fine tuning has to be explained somehow

 

[Ouroboros]

It would be interesting to discuss whether the universe has a direction, without all the theist undercurrents.

Indeed. Life as a force and direction, like a magnetic field spanning time and space, pulling the universe towards... who knows what? Maybe God is the result rather than the cause?

 

[Robert.Evans]

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...

I wish I could put it as well as that.

 

[Koldo]

you could read mine and Hawking's books on the topic also, the fine tuning has to be explained somehow

I have already given an explanation.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

Proof comes from God, not man. But evidence can be given, one of which is the fine tuning arg..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It would be interesting to discuss whether the universe has a direction, without all the theist undercurrents.

interesting yes, like discussing the software running this forum while forbidding any notion of intended purpose, it would be rather tricky- the only thing I could come up with was that it was one of an infinite number of random programs generated by an invisible infinite probability machine, and we just got veerrry lucky.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It would be interesting to discuss whether the universe has a direction, without all the theist undercurrents.

Go ahead, please do.

 

[Ouroboros]

The ground is not related to time?? How so. The ground at some point in time did not exist.

Not that ground. That's why words can't explain it. The substrate. The ground of being. The framework of existence. Tao. What time and space is made of.

Perhaps though in a deeper discussion, which is always difficult in type, we might differ more. The d-vil as they say is in the detail.... though usually in my case, the whole!

Sure, or maybe we all agree but language is the barrier that causes confusion.

The fine tuning argument is drawn from scientists not me. I find it of interest taht they would say such things. From my perspective, it seems obvious that everything is too complex to come about. The answer usually is that that is because you are 'expecting ' you etc. But 'we' do exist, so we can ask such questions.

I don't agree with the fine tuning, even though it comes from some scientists. There are also scientists who point to the discrepancies and unbalance as the explanation. If it all was perfectly tuned and ordered, all galaxies would be lined up in perfect harmony, and the balance of matter, energy, antimatter, etc would all be equal, but it's not.

I think THE Source is more an Existence and awareness of Self rather than anything else. What comes from that is what we call God, and is conscious. We are part of that, in phyical form, and we also had a part in developing that.

I kind'of agree. I understand the concepts you're getting at and agree with them, it's the words that confuses the transfer of the concepts between us. That's why I think we are on the same level here. Words created the conflict.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have already given an explanation.

me too, not much of a debate is it?

 

[Ouroboros]

I wish I could put it as well as that.

I was hoping you would like it. See, I think we do have a very similar view.

 

[Koldo]

me too, not much of a debate is it?

Apparently not. Read my posts if you want an explanation, if not just let it be.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Apparently not. Read my posts if you want an explanation, if not just let it be.

well we are both skeptical of multiverses, I agree with Krauss on Hawking 'If your theory involves an infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory'

but forbidding the cosmic lotto tumbler, and creative intelligence, leaves you with a one off fluke, a first time hole in one... on every hole on every golf course on the planet. There's no easy answer, which is what makes it such an interesting topic of debate