Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[metis]

On a question like this, "don't know" is actually the most sensible answer. Because we don't know!

Hey, wait a minute, I have a copyright on "don't know"! Post it again and I'll sue your butt off.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think we should have a "don't know" day on the forum from time to time. Like a holiday from debating.

 

[Robert.Evans]

On a question like this, "don't know" is actually the most sensible answer. Because we don't know!

I assume ''we'' is science.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Not much of a debate though is it with..... ''I don't know!!''

 

[Sapiens]

One can always make a decision on whether something has come about by luck or intelligence.

Anyone who says that they do not think it is intelligence must accept luck, as that is that is left.

A classic false dichotomy.

To take the cop-out of 'I don't know' is just that, a cop-out. You might not know yet, but surely you can see complicated things do not come about by luck. There would have to be a guiding factor.

A cop-out? And what would you call the application of a fairy tale as the explanation? I'd call it a lie. Your choice, a cop-out (till we can gather more information and make a proper determination) or a lie that we are stuck with forever and ever and ever. I'll take the "cop-out" thank you very much.

I am amazed at how many people do not seem to know this.

Me too.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I assume ''we'' is science.

Anyone. You don't know, I don't know, nobody here knows. We can speculate but that's it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

A classic false dichotomy.
A cop-out? And what would you call the application of a fairy tale as the explanation? I'd call it a lie. Your choice, a cop-out (till we can gather more information and make a proper determination) or a lie that we are stuck with forever and ever and ever. I'll take the "cop-out" thank you very much.
Me too.

A fairy tale? Now that is ignorance... and from such a clever man. I am shocked .
NOT. Stick with you luck then, and hide behind your 'don't know' if that is a comfort blanket to you.

 

[metis]

I think we should have a "don't know" day on the forum from time to time. Like a holiday from debating.

Are you kidding?! The debate would still continue over the issue of who's "don't know" is the more extensively used and/or the most authentic. Hey, this is RF, remember?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Anyone. You don't know, I don't know, nobody here knows. We can speculate but that's it.

It is spiritually discerned. It is scriptural and science theory. People can know before evidence comes in, even if that is annoying for those who 'don't know'

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Are you kidding?! The debate would still continue over the issue of who's "don't know" is the more extensively used and/or the most authentic. Hey, this is RF, remember?

Poster A: I don't know
Poster B: I haven't got a clue
Poster C: I don't even understand the question

 

[Robert.Evans]

Poster A: I don't know
Poster B: I haven't got a clue
Poster C: I don't even understand the question

And what is the title? Atheist ? haha

 

[metis]

Poster A: I don't know
Poster B: I haven't got a clue
Poster C: I don't even understand the question

LOL!

 

[Sapiens]

A fairy tale? Now that is ignorance... and from such a clever man. I am shocked .
NOT. Stick with you luck then, and hide behind your 'don't know' if that is a comfort blanket to you.

What you are missing is the that whole phrase is "I don't know YET." It is that last, always understood but oft not included word in the sentence that makes all the difference. It turns a "hide" that is somewhat better than the fairy tale, "head in the sand approach," into an organized inquiry. An inquiry, that if past experience is borne out, will resolve into a sound theory and another demonstration that religion is just fairy tales Pelion piled upon Ossa.

For us "I don't know" is not a security blanket as it is for you, it is quite the opposite, it is the start of a task. But then, if you understood that, we'd not be having this talk, you'd be pulling in harness with us to advance knowledge rather than attempting to race back into the swaddling comfort of your bronze age belief system.

 

[YmirGF]

On a question like this, "don't know" is actually the most sensible answer. Because we don't know!

It is truly, the only reasonable answer.

 

[godnotgod]

I think you're playing games. So no thanks.

And I think you don't know what you're talking about!

 

[godnotgod]

That really is still not answering the question. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, only that it seems more based on assumption.

No. It's experiential, but as long as the thinking mind persists on being in control, the experience is being blocked. Why? Because the nature of the spiritual is that it does not dominate. You have to create a receptive condition for it to come into play. As long as you continue to look for it with the discriminating mind, the more elusive it will be.

 

[godnotgod]

The question of the OP is stated in such a way that makes the universe an object, and we the observer, as if you could actually do that. You can't. You and I are 100% 'universe' as much as any star or galaxy. But due to our indoctrinations since birth, we are taught to see things in both subject/object and conceptual modes. Most people don't realize it, but the assumption that we are intelligent beings and the universe just so much dead matter is inherited by science from religion, where the universe, including man, is nothing but a created artifact, much like a potter creates a pot from clay. In fact, the Christian concept of God is seen as an artisan, or architect, of the world. The clay figure of Adam required God to breathe life into it, to animate it. It otherwise had no independent life of its own. And so, this view has come to be known as the Artifact, or Ceramic view of the universe. In addition, the Laws governing the universe were also inherited from religion. Science just eliminated God from the equation. Without God, the universe now became self-created, and so it is called 'The Fully Automatic' view of the universe.

Both of these views are extreme views.

Because the materialists of today have had difficulty in answering the hard quesiton of consciousness, some have even resorted to simply denying that consciousness exists altogether! IOW, 'consciousness' for them, is nothing more than so many chemical and electrical reactions.

I can't wait until the materialists reduce the world down to nothing at all. In fact, astronomer Lawrence Krauss has done just that. The next step, of course, will be for these 'materialists from nothing' to become transformed into full fledged mystics, ha ha ha.

 

[godnotgod]

It is truly, the only reasonable answer.

I think you mean the only 'safe' answer. We wouldn't want to chance sullying our pristine credentials by indulging in woo woo, now, would we? Would we? Well, you COULD go underground! ha ha ha

 

[godnotgod]

What you are missing is the that whole phrase is "I don't know YET." It is that last, always understood but oft not included word in the sentence that makes all the difference. It turns a "hide" that is somewhat better than the fairy tale, "head in the sand approach," into an organized inquiry. An inquiry, that if past experience is borne out, will resolve into a sound theory and another demonstration that religion is just fairy tales Pelion piled upon Ossa.

For us "I don't know" is not a security blanket as it is for you, it is quite the opposite, it is the start of a task. But then, if you understood that, we'd not be having this talk, you'd be pulling in harness with us to advance knowledge rather than attempting to race back into the swaddling comfort of your bronze age belief system.

Unfortunately, 'I don't know yet' is still operating within the old paradigm, with the same old approach. IOW, it already has an assumption formed about what it's going to find. While science will continue to uncover new facts about our world, it will never reach a true understanding as to the true nature of Reality. The kind of intelligence inherent in the universe is not the same as that of Reason. Not that it is irrational, but that it is non-rational. With all the new facts coming up about the universe, science is more in paradox than ever before. Superimposing the gridwork of rational thought onto nature does not work. Another kind of approach must be taken, unless all you are looking for are mere facts, facts which are not Reality itself, but only information about Reality.

I would suggest that, in lieu of 'I don't know yet', we nurture a 'not-knowing' mind. That way, you're completely empty of baggage, and open to the way things actually are, rather than directed by the way the conceptual mind only thinks they are.

 

[Sapiens]

Unfortunately, 'I don't know yet' is still operating within the old paradigm, with the same old approach. IOW, it already has an assumption formed about what it's going to find. While science will continue to uncover new facts about our world, it will never reach a true understanding as to the true nature of Reality.

Unsupported claim made unlikely by the evidence that is already on the table.

The kind of intelligence inherent in the universe is not the same as that of Reason.

Unsupported claim, requires a personal definition of "reason" that runs counter to normal usage.

Not that it is irrational, but that it is non-rational. With all the new facts coming up about the universe, science is more in paradox than ever before.

Balderdash, go ahead and make your case.

Superimposing the gridwork of rational thought onto nature does not work.

Say's you, I disagree.

Another kind of approach must be taken, unless all you are looking for are mere facts, facts which are not Reality itself, but only information about Reality.

I never look for facts, there are none to be found. I work on probabilities.

I would suggest that, in lieu of 'I don't know yet', we nurture a 'not-knowing' mind. That way, you're completely empty of baggage, and open to the way things actually are, rather than directed by the way the conceptual mind only thinks they are.

That's what probability is, I'm way ahead of you on this, likely about a half century ahead.