Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Guy Threepwood]

The latest thinking in cosmology is that the big bang was only the latest in an infinite series, so the idea of a "beginning" is now looking a bit simplistic. The point about science it that it continually develops it's ideas as new evidence emerges. Religion might try to adapt and incorporate new discoveries, but is ham-strung by it's basic beliefs.

latest thinking - yes! just as static, eternal, steady state, big crunch, multiverses, string theories, all used to be latest thinking

But still the latest actual validated scientific observation is of a specific creation event- an absolute beginning to space/time energy/matter as we can possibly know it.

Yet the atheist Dogma of 'no creation hence no creator' is unchanged all along, despite this dogma consistently barking up the wrong tree

 

[metis]

The latest thinking in cosmology is that the big bang was only the latest in an infinite series, so the idea of a "beginning" is now looking a bit simplistic. The point about science it that it continually develops it's ideas as new evidence emerges. Religion might try to adapt and incorporate new discoveries, but is ham-strung by it's basic beliefs.

Well said.

A large part of the problem is that most of us grow up being raised believing in God, along with certain details of what that God is all about and wants us to do, so most of us eventually accept that and then look for what the psychologists call "confirmation bias". IOW, we tend to cherry-pick information, only accepting that which confirms our bias.

If I accept that the God of the Bible made our universe in six days, and then we learn from science that this isn't necessarily the case, it's going to be difficult for us to reject what we were taught to believe and then accept a concept that's alien to what we've been told for many years.

I went through this set of experiences myself.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

not sure I understand you

You asked what the odds were of sinking a hole-in-one on a golf course, correct? I asked you if you'd consider an unrelated anecdote about the odds of a monkey randomly typing out a sonnet as a valid answer.

If you wouldn't ... could you please explain why?

any of the infinite number that would not even develop space/time for ANY event to happen in, far less life- far less sentient life, and that's what we know we would get if they were altered by the tiniest amount

Are you suggesting that universes can exist without space & time?

It may very well be that a universe that was different from our own wouldn't produce life as we know it. But can we be the least bit certain that it wouldn't produce life that was different from what we do know?

an author has a higher success rate than a monkey

At what? Writing sonnets? Saying that an author is good at doing what an author does doesn't strike me as remarkable. A monkey has a higher success rate when it comes to brachiation than an author would. So what?

Meanwhile, we might recall that monkeys and authors (as we know them) are both primates.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You asked what the odds were of sinking a hole-in-one on a golf course, correct? I asked you if you'd consider an unrelated anecdote about the odds of a monkey randomly typing out a sonnet as a valid answer.

If you wouldn't ... could you please explain why?

they are both very low, in the case of the monkey you could argue some reasonable odds based on the number of keys etc, for the golf course, the number of possible misses are incalculable, this doesn't mean we can't make a good bet

Are you suggesting that universes can exist without space & time?

that's Hawking's own explicit argument, that a vast enough number of random universes would eventually create this one- to what degree 'universe' could be applied to the various cold dark dead results is semantics, the point is- not every shot is a hole in one, there are infinite misses

It may very well be that a universe that was different from our own wouldn't produce life as we know it. But can we be the least bit certain that it wouldn't produce life that was different from what we do know?

that's great for a star trek episode, but it's an unambiguous observation that tweaking the code in the singularity would crash the entire program. Sentient life appeared once amongst millions of species here, and amongst a silent galaxy- it's simply not the sort of thing that is 'bound to happen' given any random pile of stuff. random information does not get bored and develop a consciousness for fun, that has to be written in first--

At what? Writing sonnets?

at using creative intelligence to create intelligently

Meanwhile, we might recall that monkeys and authors (as we know them) are both primates.

[/quote]

Of course, Piltdown man proved that beyond doubt

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course, Piltdown man proved that beyond doubt

Twas fraud which created Piltdown Man.
Twas science which debunked him.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I think it's a mystery. It might be solved one day, but it will be solved by science, not religion.

What will? If you are speaking about where we come from, they will only be able to explain so much... science is limited.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Twas fraud which created Piltdown Man.
Twas science which debunked him.

Agreed, atheism v science once again

 

[Revoltingest]

Agreed, atheism v science once again

Was Charles Dawson (Piltdown Man's 'discoverer') an atheist? If so, was his agenda to serve atheism?

Contrary to what so many fundies believe, we atheists have no conspiracy. If we did, I'd be more likely to know of it....since I'm in the club, you know.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I didn't look. Do you really think I wouldn't find other opinions that Islam was behind 9/11? Certainly, politics plays a role, but suicide attacks, martyrdom, religious sloganeering, paint me a picture of violent religious fanaticism.

take it from the horse's mouth, Bin Laden was a lot more passionately vocal about attacking capitalism than anything else, some people call Hitler religiously motivated too, but NAZI didn't stand for national german 'christian' workers party, they were socialists first and foremost

 

[Robert.Evans]

I didn't look. Do you really think I wouldn't find other opinions that Islam was behind 9/11? Certainly, politics plays a role, but suicide attacks, martyrdom, religious sloganeering, paint me a picture of violent religious fanaticism.

People will use whatever tools are at their disposal. As Muslims and their life are one, then clearly it will be seen in their rhetoric actions etc.... but that is not the reason. Belief in God is just that, belief, just as non belief is just that.... it does not make one kill.

However, people can misuse their own ideaology in anything including religion... but I would bet that left to religion, we would not have A b-mbs, or chemical warfare, etc.... scientist may not kill, whereas perhaps religious people do, (but then do do secular and atheist people ) but they sure as heck make big enough weapons to make up for it and to kill many. What would you prefer to see, a religous man with a sword on a donkey, or a secular person in a plane with an b-mb? I take my chances with the donkey.

 

[Robert.Evans]

well we finally found something to disagree on!

Haha... it had to come... I suppose that is the Middle East. What is your take?

 

[Revoltingest]

take it from the horse's mouth, Bin Laden was a lot more passionately vocal about attacking capitalism than anything else, some people call Hitler religiously motivated too, but NAZI didn't stand for national german 'christian' workers party, they were socialists first and foremost

The man was very much a product of a primitive & dangerous Islam.....
Beliefs and ideology of Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Robert.Evans]

The latest thinking in cosmology is that the big bang was only the latest in an infinite series, so the idea of a "beginning" is now looking a bit simplistic. The point about science it that it continually develops it's ideas as new evidence emerges. Religion might try to adapt and incorporate new discoveries, but is ham-strung by it's basic beliefs.

I don't think so, lest you are saying that is the organsied faiths, then i might agree.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The man was very much a product of a primitive & dangerous Islam.....
Beliefs and ideology of Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the dangerous islam is the one corrupted by socialism- i.e. Baathists of Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. Many Islamic nations are very peaceful and prosperous, the ones that freed up their markets and have better things to do than attack freedom

 

[Robert.Evans]

Well said.

A large part of the problem is that most of us grow up being raised believing in God, along with certain details of what that God is all about and wants us to do, so most of us eventually accept that and then look for what the psychologists call "confirmation bias". IOW, we tend to cherry-pick information, only accepting that which confirms our bias.

If I accept that the God of the Bible made our universe in six days, and then we learn from science that this isn't necessarily the case, it's going to be difficult for us to reject what we were taught to believe and then accept a concept that's alien to what we've been told for many years.

I went through this set of experiences myself.

But it does not say that a ''day'' is a 24 hour period. Classic mistake.

 

[Revoltingest]

People will use whatever tools are at their disposal. As Muslims and their life are one, then clearly it will be seen in their rhetoric actions etc.... but that is not the reason. Belief in God is just that, belief, just as non belief is just that.... it does not make one kill.

But Islam is much much more than belief in a god. It is mountains of scripture, prescribing behavior in great detail.

However, people can misuse their own ideaology in anything including religion... but I would bet that left to religion, we would not have A b-mbs, or chemical warfare, etc.... scientist may not kill, whereas perhaps religious people do, (but then do do secular and atheist people ) but they sure as heck make big enough weapons to make up for it and to kill many. What would you prefer to see, a religous man with a sword on a donkey, or a secular person in a plane with an b-mb? I take my chances with the donkey.

Do they not "misuse" their ideology/scripture because of their own spiritual insights?

 

[Revoltingest]

the dangerous islam is the one corrupted by socialism- i.e. Baathists of Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. Many Islamic nations are very peaceful and prosperous, the ones that freed up their markets and have better things to do than attack freedom

Corrupted or not, spiritual insight lead them to their faith. So as a technique of divining "the truth", I find it lacking.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Haha... it had to come... I suppose that is the Middle East. What is your take?

I don't think there is any easy answer, as being discussed here, I think socialism aka baathism is the bigger problem there than Islam. I spent a little time in several ME countries, which doesn't make me an expert- but a stark difference struck me, between the ones that allow private enterprise to flourish and ones that don't.

As with Hitler, it was very understandable that people didn't want to get into another war, but the last person to be awarded the nobel peace prize before WWII broke out, won it for helping the west appease the Nazis, a noble peaceful intent, but he had that trophy to admire while 10's of millions died.

in a sense I think it's all been the same fight between freedom and tyranny- not east/west Christianity/islam simplistic I know, but let me know what you think, I have to run for now but will respond later.

 

[metis]

There's are various forms of socialism, and one would be hard put to find many people today, or even back at Hitler's time, that would endorse the NAZI brand of it, especially since theirs violated a the major brunt of true socialism, namely putting much more power and resources into the hands of the entire general populace. As most know, the label that best fits what the NAZI's believed in and created was "fascism".

 

[NulliuSINverba]

they are both very low, in the case of the monkey you could argue some reasonable odds based on the number of keys etc, for the golf course, the number of possible misses are incalculable, this doesn't mean we can't make a good bet

Apparently, the odds of hitting a hole-in-one have been calculated (12,500 to 1 for an amateur golfer) by the people who're responsible for issuing insurance policies for institutions that're offering a hole-in-one prize. Go figure.

This is via Golf Digest Magazine. Plunk!

Is there a Creationist Digest magazine out there? Anyone have a link?

What does it cost to buy a Creationist Insurance Policy? Are they even offered? Was God an amateur universe creator, or a seasoned pro? The Bible doesn't indicate what his handicap was, does it?

Bah! Who needs insurance when you have absolute certainty?

that's Hawking's own explicit argument, that a vast enough number of random universes would eventually create this one- to what degree 'universe' could be applied to the various cold dark dead results is semantics, the point is- not every shot is a hole in one, there are infinite misses

So Hawking is arguing that if you're allowed an infinite number of chances to win the lottery, eventually your number will come up? Isn't Hawking arguing that our universe was inevitable?

that's great for a star trek episode, but it's an unambiguous observation that tweaking the code in the singularity would crash the entire program.

How can you possibly know that?

Sentient life appeared once amongst millions of species here, and amongst a silent galaxy- it's simply not the sort of thing that is 'bound to happen' given any random pile of stuff.

For the sake of argument, would you care to provide evidence that in some other theoretical universe the exact opposite couldn't be true? If not, I'm perfectly happy confining the argument to our own universe.

... random information does not get bored and develop a consciousness for fun, that has to be written in first--

How can you possibly know that?

at using creative intelligence to create intelligently

Via a brain, correct? And aren't proponents of ID arguing for "mind sans brain?" Do we have any evidence of intelligence existing outside of a material framework?

...

Of course, Piltdown man proved that beyond doubt

Actually, didn't Linnaeus (the Christian who is regarded as the father of modern taxonomy) have humans and monkeys classified as primates well before the Piltdown hoax? Linnaeus wrote his treatise in 1758, correct? The Piltdown scam occurred in 1912, correct? There is a gulf of over 150 years between the two events, no?

And make no mistake ... Piltdown Man was a hoax. Hoaxes don't really prove anything, do they?

The Piltdown evidence wasn't convincing and failed to withstand scrutiny. The truth soon won out. This is how science works. It is demonstrably self-correcting and amendable. If only monotheism were half as pliable.

You might look into The Donation of Constantine as an analogous example. You might even conclude that the resulting damage was much more extensive than that wrought by the Piltdown Man hoax.

Mind you: I'd never suggest that the Donation of Constantine is evidence that there is no God. It only illustrates that God's self-appointed proxies can be ruthlessly dishonest when making claims.