Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[NulliuSINverba]

likewise -which seems simpler

A. the card just happened to be the one you picked
B. the card was the one you picked because the intricate pattern on the back has a tiny asymmetrical detail and a creative magician with a good eye and quick hand turned the pack around without you noticing before you stuck your card back in,

Once again, you're reduced to citing materialistic, demonstrable, known mechanisms in an attempt to explain what you're claiming to be an immaterial, non-demonstrable, unknown "mechanism" of creation ex nihilo?

Enough already with the apples and oranges. Please?

In both cases the second explanation is both more complex and more plausible, because it involves purpose, intent, creativity - very powerful explanations for something that would otherwise be improbable by chance.

Yet you cannot see that the theistic explanation ("This universe just happened to be the one God created") seems much more akin to Option A! Meanwhile, Option B relies on known processes and (essentially) base trickery.

If you're truly arguing that God's role in the universe is (like that of a magician's in a stage act) illusory, our positions on this issue aren't all that far apart, really. Like the magic act, it's much more likely that there is a plausible explanation for the universe that doesn't involve magic and trickery.

Given the weakness of theistic apologetics in general (and Christian apologetics specifically) I'm perfectly willing to take that argument one step further and (in lieu of complex, plausible evidence) maintain that God's existence is also illusory.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Once again, you're reduced to citing materialistic, demonstrable, known mechanisms in an attempt to explain what you're claiming to be an immaterial, non-demonstrable, unknown "mechanism" of creation ex nihilo?

aka an analogy.

Yet you cannot see that the theistic explanation ("This universe just happened to be the one God created") seems much more akin to Option A! Meanwhile, Option B relies on known processes and (essentially) base trickery.

If you're truly arguing that God's role in the universe is (like that of a magician's in a stage act) illusory, our positions on this issue aren't all that far apart, really. Like the magic act, it's much more likely that there is a plausible explanation for the universe that doesn't involve magic and trickery.

Given the weakness of theistic apologetics in general (and Christian apologetics specifically) I'm perfectly willing to take that argument one step further and (in lieu of complex, plausible evidence) maintain that God's existence is also illusory.

well yes, I don't believe the universe magically, spontaneously appeared any more than the rabbit in the hat.

I believe it was intentional, designed, as the card trick, as the gambler being dealt 10 royal flushes.. I suspect cheating,


In all cases- 'chance' is always possible- re. 10 royal flushes or the universe, right? and we cannot disprove that

But the reason we suspect 'cheating' is not that chance is impossible, but that there is a superior explanation, provided by a 'pay off' and hence a motive and hence a power of explanation. Creative intelligence is unique in it's ability to harbor purpose, to act in conscious anticipation of a specific unique genuinely creative result. Something nature alone simply cannot do..

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Something nature alone simply cannot do..

Nature is fantastically creative.

 

[godnotgod]

No. Likely that behaviour would arise from the chemistry of its components, just as a snowflake assembles due to the properties of the water molecule. In any case, your example is nonsense. The biochemicals would be its food.

The only organisms capable of synthesizing their own food are plants, via photosynthesis, but they actually create the biochemicals by converting sunlight into organic compounds, a very complex process. All I am saying is that if you, with a brain, had to perform on the same level of complexity, you could not do it without intelligence. And yet plants, with no brains, can do this. So it's not brains that are the requirement, but intelligence. The assumption you are making is that brains are necessary for intelligence to occur. I would say that intelligence is necessary for brains to occur, brains being the organ that consciousness uses primarily for certain autonomic functions plus data storage. That way, consciousness does not always have to actively pay attention up front to the myriad activities of the body. It can just relegate them to the brain while it focuses on what is occurring spontaneously in the moment, an attacking tiger, for example, where one would need to focus all one's attention on escape. The brain takes care of the pumping of blood and adrenalin supply to the muscles automatically. But it's intelligence that allows you to actually figure out, quite quickly, how to escape.

Not only are plants capable of photosynthesis, they in turn are the food source for many other life forms on the planet, as well as serving other functions.

Things can happen in this universe as a consequence of the properties of the universe and the things in it without involving intelligence. It does not take intelligence for a ball to roll downhill.

Taken as a whole, all of the activities of the universe, from simple to complex, may be of a different class of intelligence than the cognitive intellect of the brain. Water flowing downhill ends up fulfilling many other related activities, activities which you, with a brain, are incapable of performing, let alone conceptualizing. IOW, the intelligence of nature is non-conceptual.

 

[godnotgod]

I will try and make it clearer: You asked:

Yes

I don't think it is.

So then is intelligence just another word for consciousness? I said earlier that intelligence is prior to process. Let's not confuse thinking with intelligence. Intelligence is simply to see things as they actually are, that is to say, to see into the true nature of Reality. This pure seeing does not involve mental activity. Once mental activity comes into play, we are in the realm of the discriminating mind, which splits Reality into 'this' and 'that', where no such distinctions actually exist.

 

[godnotgod]

Creative intelligence is unique in it's ability to harbor purpose, to act in conscious anticipation of a specific unique genuinely creative result. Something nature alone simply cannot do..

Nature does it without any idea of purpose or expectation of outcome. Flowers open spontaneously, without hesitation, apprehension or purpose. There is no thought in nature about what it's doing, and yet, it knows exactly what to do.

'The geese, flying over the still pond, do not intend to cast their shadows, nor does the pond intend to reflect their images.'
Zen source

 

[godnotgod]

Nature is fantastically creative.

...with infinite variety.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

aka an analogy.

And not an especially good one.

Something akin to: Lots of things within the universe are demonstrably designed. Therefore, the universe itself must be designed.

A conclusion like that simply reeks of fallacy.

well yes, I don't believe the universe magically, spontaneously appeared any more than the rabbit in the hat.

No. You believe that a divine magician pulled it out of his ... void ... on purpose, correct? If you really believe that the universe was fabricated from nothing ... how do you differentiate between that belief and magic?

I believe it was intentional, designed, as the card trick, as the gambler being dealt 10 royal flushes.. I suspect cheating ...

The universe is God's card trick?

<<<insert your Divine Hand of God joke here>>>

In all cases- 'chance' is always possible

You haven't answered the question about whether or not God was obliged to create the universe. Perhaps it wasn't posed blatantly enough? Again: Was God obliged to create the universe?

If yes: What does this say about the nature of your alleged creator?
If no: Gosh! Aren't we totally lucky that God opted top create ... anything?

re. 10 royal flushes or the universe, right? and we cannot disprove that

Again: We can calculate the odds of a card trick. Where are you deriving your numbers for God and the universe? How are you calculating the odds where creation ex nihilo is concerned?

But the reason we suspect 'cheating' is not that chance is impossible, but that there is a superior explanation, provided by a 'pay off' and hence a motive and hence a power of explanation. Creative intelligence is unique in it's ability to harbor purpose, to act in conscious anticipation of a specific unique genuinely creative result. Something nature alone simply cannot do..

Again: If you believe that God (Gods?) opted to create the universe, are you not in fact still a proponent of luck?

A claim of divine intelligence is not a superior explanation. However, I will concede that this claim undoubtedly offers a payoff: One is free to stop thinking. The question has been "answered." Or "explained away" if you like.

You have failed to convince that claims of divine intellect hold any explanatory power whatsoever. It's quite obvious that all you're doing is fallaciously compounding the mystery.

 

[godnotgod]

By substance, I mean whatever goes toward making objects. Matter is the only example we know of.

Repeat: 'So what does Quantum Physics tell us about the nature of the material world?'

 

[Looncall]

Repeat: 'So what does Quantum Physics tell us about the nature of the material world?'

Wave-particle duality, mostly. I hope you are not going to insult us with Choprish quantum mysticism balderdash.

 

[psychoslice]

It all seems intelligent through our feeble minds, but its way beyond anything we can ever understand with our feeble minds.

 

[godnotgod]

Wave-particle duality, mostly.

What does QM say about the 'field of possibilities'?

 

[Looncall]

It all seems intelligent through our feeble minds, but its way beyond anything we can ever understand with our feeble minds.

Such defeatism! I don't buy it. One shouldn't let the pathetic despair of the religious deprive us of hope.

 

[Looncall]

What does QM say about the 'field of possibilities'?

I just had a quick look 'round for "field of possibilities". All I found was silly new-agey nonsense.

The religious seem to have seized on QM in the hope of escaping the absurdity of their beliefs.

By the way, I am a professional chemist and bave studied QM.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Nature is fantastically creative.

And where does this mysitcal nature come from?

 

[godnotgod]

I just had a quick look 'round for "field of possibilities". All I found was silly new-agey nonsense.

The religious seem to have seized on QM in the hope of escaping the absurdity of their beliefs.

By the way, I am a professional chemist and bave studied QM.

I'll rephrase my question: What is the context, or background, by which you determine that something is substance?

 

[Looncall]

I'll rephrase my question: What is the context, or background, by which you determine that something is substance?

Here are some definitions I found for substance on dictionary.com. They make sense to me.

"that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material"

"something that exists by itself and in which accidents or attributes inhere; that which receives modifications and is not itself a mode; something that is causally active; something that is more than an event"

I do not think that intelligence qualifies as a substance under any of these descriptions.

I do not understand what you mean by "context or background" in your question.

 

[Aupmanyav]

'Substance' is a very dicey thing. If U235 is a substance, what is the energy produced in an atom bomb? Is that not 'substance'? In future we may even require a new definition of existence and non-existence (not joking).

And where does this mysitcal nature come from?

Was he talking about any mystical nature? He was talking about sub-atomic forces.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nature does it without any idea of purpose or expectation of outcome. Flowers open spontaneously, without hesitation, apprehension or purpose. There is no thought in nature about what it's doing, and yet, it knows exactly what to do.

like watches?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And not an especially good one.

Something akin to: Lots of things within the universe are demonstrably designed. Therefore, the universe itself must be designed.

A conclusion like that simply reeks of fallacy.

It's your conclusion and so it reeks of your protectionism;

Lots of things within the universe are demonstrably natural. Therefore, the universe itself must be natural

ID is about much more than just an argument from familiarity, it's about solving the paradox of functional designs accidentally creating themsleves

No. You believe that a divine magician pulled it out of his ... void ... on purpose, correct? If you really believe that the universe was fabricated from nothing ... how do you differentiate between that belief and magic?

- by accident or design 'from nothing' is the same apparent paradox, yet here we are, so that is a wash. The capacity of chance v design is not even however.

You haven't answered the question about whether or not God was obliged to create the universe. Perhaps it wasn't posed blatantly enough? Again: Was God obliged to create the universe?

ask nicely, no yelling

Again: We can calculate the odds of a card trick. Where are you deriving your numbers for God and the universe? How are you calculating the odds where creation ex nihilo is concerned?

Hawking puts the odds at near infinity to one, hence the number of hypothetical multiverses that would be required to fluke this one. we agree.

Again: If you believe that God (Gods?) opted to create the universe, are you not in fact still a proponent of luck?

purpose