Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Guy Threepwood]

We simply don't know at this stage. There may well be something "magical" going on, but I don't think God language is at all useful or revealing in considering what that might be - there's far too much theological baggage tied up with this way of thinking.

that's the trouble with a-theism as a belief, you can't base your beliefs on mere skepticism of other's beliefs. You can't know what their reasons are, so it's all too east to write them off as 'irrational'.

If we look at what we believe, and scrutinize that instead, we don't make that same mistake right?

If you start with the common denominator definition of God- intelligent creator of the universe, a lot of the 'baggage' is merely a logical extension of that definition.

 

[Revoltingest]

that's the trouble, you can't base your beliefs on mere skepticism of other's beliefs. You can't know what their reasons are, so it's all too east to write them off as 'irrational'.

If you start with the common denominator definition of God- intelligent creator of the universe, a lot of the 'baggage' is merely a logical extension of that definition.

When you count the number of gods, why stop at one?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Isn't one enough?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

When you count the number of gods, why stop at one?

I think creative intelligence helps explain our universe existing, purpose requires a consciousness and I call that God- the creator, as do most people.

Multiple Gods were usually assigned to account for multiple objects in primitive religions, rocks, trees etc . The Bible predicted a specific singular creation event for everything, and this singular event was validated.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Isn't one enough?

One or more it's better than luck haha

 

[Revoltingest]

I think creative intelligence helps explain our universe existing, purpose requires a consciousness and I call that God- the creator, as do most people.
Multiple Gods were usually assigned to account for multiple objects in primitive religions, rocks, trees etc . The Bible predicted a specific singular creation event for everything, and this singular event was validated.

Those aren't reasons for stopping at one though. There's no reason there couldn't be "intelligences"....a whole race of gods.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Those aren't reasons for stopping at one though. There's no reason there couldn't be "intelligences"....a whole race of gods.

As Robert said, if it were a choice between a race of Gods and luck, then sure, creative intelligence either way wins I think, but the point was about starting with the most common lowest denominator definition- before adding 'baggage'.

 

[Revoltingest]

One or more it's better than luck haha

It's still "luck" that these gods decided to create our universe & us, & then operate it down to the smallest detail. What are the odds that these gods would write Shakespeare's sonnets exactly as they did?

 

[Revoltingest]

As Robert said, if it were a choice between a race of Gods and luck, then sure, creative intelligence either way wins I think, but the point was about starting with the most common lowest denominator definition- before adding 'baggage'.

Lowest common denominator? How does this apply?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Lowest common denominator? How does this apply?

God = intelligent creator of the universe, that's the most common simple definition

 

[Revoltingest]

God = intelligent creator of the universe, that's the most common simple definition

How does a concept about fractions apply to gods?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

God = intelligent creator of the universe, that's the most common simple definition

Monotheism isn't the only contender though. Pantheism might be more credible.
Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Monotheism isn't the only contender though. Pantheism might be more credible.
Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which one did you feel needed a link to explain it? that's the point, I'm talking about the most common simple definition- a minority position might expand that definition to include all of the universe, but we already have a word for that; the universe

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If we're talking about the universe being intelligent in some sense, then pantheism might well make more sense than monotheism. So why don't we explore that too?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

You always say a lot, but say nothing.

Cliff's Notes For Robert: You failed to explain how your cited example (Monkeys Typing Shakespeare - or any scenario where the numbers are available to calculate the odds) was relevant to a scenario (e.g. - the alleged creation of the universe via intellect) in which you have no numbers with with to calculate probability.

So what if the odds are against a monkey typing out Shakespeare in a finite amount of time? You're only able to make that argument because you had numbers to work with ... which isn't the case with the universe.

See: Analogy, Faulty (or Analogy, False)

 

[metis]

I doubt they think that, but if they do, they as you, are blinding themselves with science and philosophy.

I think it works fine. There are component parts that have to be assembled, just as atoms to to form molecules and cells etc. No difference. Perhaps you could show me where a scientists says what I quoted. If you do, my estimation of them will go downhill fast... For that my friend, is faith, theirs.

I think you need to do some serious reading, plus you mustn't be aware of polls that show that you are wrong about what they think, which have been posted before. And your claim that these cosmologists and physicists are "blinding themselves with science and philosophy" is patently absurd. You simply are making one crazy assumption and assertion after another, which tells me that you have no intention of studying what these scientists are saying, nor are you interested because you have all the answers.

The bottom line: if you simply are not willing to do the homework, and then you act unethically by laughing at people whom you disagree with, I have to conclude that your "religious" approach isn't doing much to influence you in any kind of positive manner that I can detect.

Enough is enough.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If we're talking about the universe being intelligent in some sense, then pantheism might well make more sense than monotheism. So why don't we explore that too?

God is creator of the universe either way, pantheism generally goes into specifics beyond that as does 'monotheism'

God= intelligent creator of the universe, is still the common thread here-

Just as the many varied beliefs of atheism orbit the central common belief in a cosmic accident devoid of purpose-

so.. for an atheist to understand a theists belief- or vice versa, it's best to understand the core first - to help rationalize the 'baggage'- yes?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Cliff's Notes For Robert: You failed to explain how your cited example (Monkeys Typing Shakespeare - or any scenario where the numbers are available to calculate the odds) was relevant to a scenario (e.g. - the alleged creation of the universe via intellect) in which you have no numbers with with to calculate probability.

So what if the odds are against a monkey typing out Shakespeare in a finite amount of time? You're only able to make that argument because you had numbers to work with ... which isn't the case with the universe.

See: Analogy, Faulty (or Analogy, False)

IF I showed you a monkey in a room with a typewriter and just ' to be or not to be' on a page, would you believe he typed it accidentally?
what if I swore he did, what if we started with blank pages and locked the door, what would it take to convince you the fluke had occurred?

we don't know the odds of cheating, we don't have those numbers, but we would have to be utterly certain cheating was utterly impossible to even consider chance
how can you be this sure God can't possibly exist?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

So it boils down to preference...you say "goddidit", & I say "itjusthappened".

And if you're insisting that "Godunnit®" is the answer, you're obliged to make the case. If the best you can offer is "Gee ... it seems highly unlikely that a monkey on a typewriter with a set number of keys could type out a sonnet with a set number of characters in a set amount of time" haven't you already divested your argument of any relevance to a discussion about God? Are we seriously expected to believe that God has a set number for calculating probability? If so .. what is it?

Additionally, if you're going to claim that "Goddunit®" is the answer, haven't you added at least one additional assumption to the equation?

Watson: It looks like the victim might have been strangled with the rope wrapped 'round its neck.
Holmes: Nonsense, Watson! It is clear that a horde of baboons dressed in Elvis costumes tickled the victim to death!
Watson: How? And who's Elvis?

Beyond that, are you not seeking to answer a mystery with an even greater mystery?

...

And even if we grant that some sort of intelligence created the universe, theists cannot demonstrate which intelligence it is.

Can we be fairly certain that the OP wasn't trying to argue that the universe was created by somebody else's deity?

 

[Robert.Evans]

It's still "luck" that these gods decided to create our universe & us, & then operate it down to the smallest detail. What are the odds that these gods would write Shakespeare's sonnets exactly as they did?

I would say that God and the gods are us, as apposed to just created us. It is an expansion of consciousness that develops into this physical realm. That is like your mind developing from a child. If you want to say that is luck, then fine. To say this universe comes into being through luck, then no.

If you had complete autonomy from the higher-consciousness (which you don't believe in) then the thoughts in your head you probably consider to be luck. It is not quite that though really is it, because there is only one original thought... after that, every thought is based on the last - or something eternal.