Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Ouroboros]

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

I don't know if we should..

Oh, shoot, you got me!

 

[YmirGF]

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

A fairly typical answer, coming from you, godnotgod. The thing is, I could do just like you and pretend to have THE ANSWER. I embraced my uncertainty, as my understanding is dwarfed by the gargantuan nature of the multiverse.

 

[YmirGF]

Unsupported claim made unlikely by the evidence that is already on the table.
Unsupported claim, requires a personal definition of "reason" that runs counter to normal usage.
Balderdash, go ahead and make your case.
Say's you, I disagree.
I never look for facts, there are none to be found. I work on probabilities.
That's what probability is, I'm way ahead of you on this, likely about a half century ahead.

I very much like your responses, in their entirety.

 

[godnotgod]

A fairly typical answer, coming from you, godnotgod. The thing is, I could do just like you and pretend to have THE ANSWER. I embraced my uncertainty, as my understanding is dwarfed by the gargantuan nature of the multiverse.

Now who's pretending?

I never said I had THE ANSWER. What I said was that science, because of its approach will never reach a true understanding as to the true nature of Reality, and that is because the basic approach of science is dissection into what it thinks are 'parts' as a means of 'understanding' the whole. If you don't see why that as a first step is erroneous by itself, then maybe you should go to the source itself.

 

[godnotgod]

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

The evidence on the table just points to the fact that we are no closer to understanding the true nature of Reality than ever before. Show me the evidence that says otherwise.

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

Except that I'm not using a personal definition. I'm referring to standard usage. The support for my claim is inherent in the fact that, according to the materialist view, Reason requires a brain and thought, which just means that a concept must first be formulated about nature as a means of 'understanding' nature. Nature itself doesn't require a brain or thought in order to function as the highly intelligent entity that it is. Humans, with brains, can not even approach what a blade of grass can do in regards to photosynthesis without brains. In our world, we would require more brain power. It's obviously not that way with nature.

Balderdash

, go ahead and make your case.

Unnecessary. Science has already done that as a multitude of theories abound, none of which can contribute one iota toward knowing what the true nature of Reality is. Religion was largely abandoned because it could not provide spiritual nourishment to man, and now science is being seen the same way. That is why, for example, you see such an avid interest in mysticism today. Zen, Yoga, Sufism, Wicca, New Age, Taoism, all of which are feminine based teachings which do provide such nourishment. Add to this the growing number of bona fide scientists, like Penrose, Goswami, Sheldrake and others who have embraced a mystical view as a necessary part of science as a means of creating a holistic view.

Say's you, I disagree.

Says reality. Show me where it has worked in terms of knowing what the universe actually IS. Science has come loaded with factual knowledge, but empty handed as far as knowing how to interpret that knowledge. A bigger view is required in order to do that, and that view is the spiritual view, which embraces the entire universe.

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

.

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

I seriously doubt that. You're still looking for something, still seeking. 'I don't know yet' implies still seeking with expectation, as if some new piece of knowledge forthcoming is going to create an epiphany. It won't. It will, as it has demonstrated from all past experience, only lead to more questions. 'Not knowing' mind is completely empty of all baggage, including 'probabilities'. It's not looking for anything in particular. In that way, it can be completely receptive to what is, rather than trying to 'figure out' what might be, when there is nothing to figure out.

 

[Sapiens]

The evidence on the table just points to the fact that we are no closer to understanding the true nature of Reality than ever before. Show me the evidence that says otherwise.

Classic, make an outrageous claim, one that falls into the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" hopper and then attempt to shift the burden of proof. That's ignorant at best and fraudulent at worst.

Except that I'm not using a personal definition. I'm referring to standard usage. The support for my claim is inherent in the fact that, according to the materialist view, Reason requires a brain and thought, which just means that a concept must first be formulated about nature as a means of 'understanding' nature. Nature itself doesn't require a brain or thought in order to function as the highly intelligent entity that it is. Humans, with brains, can not even approach what a blade of grass can do in regards to photosynthesis without brains. In our world, we would require more brain power. It's obviously not that way with nature.

Here we see the old cop-out. The universe is so big and so complex that it has all the attributes of a sentient being. Except, of course, the ability to reproduce itself and evolve. So how did it get to the pinnacle it sits at?

BTW, artificial photosynthesis has been with us since the late 1960s.

Unnecessary. Science has already done that as a multitude of theories abound, none of which can contribute one iota toward knowing what the true nature of Reality is. Religion was largely abandoned because it could not provide spiritual nourishment to man, and now science is being seen the same way. That is why, for example, you see such an avid interest in mysticism today. Zen, Yoga, Sufism, Wicca, New Age, Taoism, all of which are feminine based teachings which do provide such nourishment. Add to this the growing number of bona fide scientists, like Penrose, Goswami, Sheldrake and others who have embraced a mystical view as a necessary part of science as a means of creating a holistic view.

It's unnecessary to make your case? Then what are you doing here in a debate forum. Retire to you place of contemplation and see what you can do for the hungry of the planet singing, "ohm, ohm on the range."

Penrose, Goswami and Sheldrake, well, at least the first two, were bona fide scientists, physicists. There is a rather well known phenomena in which math types and physicists (same thing really) tend to make their contributions early in their career and go bonkers late in life. Truly a shame to go out that way. My read of Sheldrake is just that he's and out and out fraud. Now if you want to discuss Lovelock and Margolis ... they've at least kept their marbles amd argued their claims with strength, intelligence and persistnace.

Says reality. Show me where it has worked in terms of knowing what the universe actually IS. Science has come loaded with factual knowledge, but empty handed as far as knowing how to interpret that knowledge. A bigger view is required in order to do that, and that view is the spiritual view, which embraces the entire universe.

Demonstrate that a spiritual view exists in something more real than your overheated imaginator and I'll give it serious consideration. Otherwise you are, once again, just arguing from ignorance.

I seriously doubt that. You're still looking for something, still seeking. 'I don't know yet' implies still seeking with expectation, as if some new piece of knowledge forthcoming is going to create an epiphany. It won't. It will, as it has demonstrated from all past experience, only lead to more questions. 'Not knowing' mind is completely empty of all baggage, including 'probabilities'.

I will be seeking for all my days, that's the nature of the beast. Yes it will lead to more questions and each of those questions will lead to more answers, and so on. I do not see an end to it, it is one of the many infinities that we are faced with. I do not expect each new discovery to be some huge epiphany, I just expect each new discovery to add to the calculus so that I approach the limit I will never reach but that I am a step closer to. You get further and further away with all your he-haw of holisticism that you really don't practice because you are so afraid of the size of the whole that you can't even begin to try and embrace it. That failure is what creates your spirituality, your mysticism, and your inability to cope with the complex and infinite reality.

 

[YmirGF]

I will be seeking for all my days, that's the nature of the beast. Yes it will lead to more questions and each of those questions will lead to more answers, and so on. I do not see an end to it, it is one of the many infinities that we are faced with. I do not expect each new discover to be some huge epiphany, I just expect each new discover to add to the calculus so that I approach the limit I will never reach but that I am a step closer to. You get further and further away with all your he-haw of holisticism that you really don't practice because you are so afraid of the size of the whole that you can't even being to try and embrace it. That failure is what creates your spirituality, your mysticism, your inability to cope with the complex and infinite reality.

That is really an awesome response. Bravo. I'd book onto your safari into the unknown any day.

 

[YmirGF]

Now who's pretending?

I never said I had THE ANSWER. What I said was that science, because of its approach will never reach a true understanding as to the true nature of Reality, and that is because the basic approach of science is dissection into what it thinks are 'parts' as a means of 'understanding' the whole. If you don't see why that as a first step is erroneous by itself, then maybe you should go to the source itself.

Everything you write implies that you have "the answer", godnotgod. Your specious claim that science can never "reach a true understanding as to the true nature of Reality" is a good example. It's an extraordinary claim with no real merit. IF, and I stress IF, you were being honest and offering a genuine opinion, you could get a pass by saying, "reach a true understanding as to the true nature of Reality - as I perceive it". Oddly, I don't expect the universe to reflect my vision of how it should be.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That failure is what creates your spirituality, your mysticism, your inability to cope with the complex and infinite reality.

I suspect a lot religious and spiritual belief stems from that failure. Even my own.

 

[Robert.Evans]

What you are missing is the that whole phrase is "I don't know YET."

Is it really. Sounds somewhat conceited I would have thought, condsidering you ''don't know''.

It is that last, always understood but oft not included word in the sentence that makes all the difference.

How is it that you think science is going to be able to answer Why we are here, that is assuming that you understand what I mean by that, which I doubt.

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.

On the contrary, it turns enlightenment into darkness, and open minds into closed ones. It is only atheist who close their minds to the theory of God. You equally can be said to have your 'head in the sand' when it comes to this subject, which is fairly obvious for all to see. Your ''fairytale'' of luck wrapped up in the ribbon of ''natural'' and with a disclaimer of ''I don't know'' is not impressive.

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.

The start of a task?? Haha.... you are looking to see if there is a God?? I don't think do. Your head is in the sand, closed minds. You are afraid of being saved perhaps? Or is it something deep within you that is bitter that you are not... perhaps so deep you don't even know it is there.

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.

And what makes you think I can't accept science? A closed atheist mindset again. You stick with your luck and magic wise man, and wrap yourself up in that. It will do you no good though, but what the heck. And I might remind you, that not all old things are necessarily bad. Atoms bombs are new, are they good?
Belief in the divine seems to have been around from at least the time when we first started to write anything at all understandable. We might ask why. It has been around for thousands of years and nearly helf the scientific world believe. It is shame though that the delusion of luck is so strong.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I very much like your responses, in their entirety.

What responses? Being blind to a subject and throwing a tantrum is not a response.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Classic, make an outrageous claim, one that falls into the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" hopper and then attempt to shift the burden of proof. That's ignorant at best and fraudulent at worst.
Here we see the old cop-out. The universe is so big and so complex that it has all the attributes of a sentient being. Except, of course, the ability to reproduce itself and evolve. So how did it get to the pinnacle it sits at?

BTW, artificial photosynthesis has been with us since the late 1960s.
It's unnecessary to make your case? Then what are you doing here in a debate forum. Retire to you place of contemplation and see what you can do for the hungry of the planet singing, "ohm, ohm on the range."

Penrose, Goswami and Sheldrake, well, at least the first two, were bona fide scientists, physicists. There is a rather well known phenomena in which math types and physicists (same thing really) tend to make their contributions early in their career and go bonkers late in life. Truly a shame to go out that way. My read of Sheldrake is just that he's and out and out fraud. Now if you want to discuss Lovelock and Margolis ... they've at least kept their marbles amd argued their claims with strength, intelligence and persistnace.
Demonstrate that a spiritual view exists in something more real than your overheated imaginator and I'll give it serious consideration. Otherwise you are, once again, just arguing from ignorance.
I will be seeking for all my days, that's the nature of the beast. Yes it will lead to more questions and each of those questions will lead to more answers, and so on. I do not see an end to it, it is one of the many infinities that we are faced with. I do not expect each new discover to be some huge epiphany, I just expect each new discover to add to the calculus so that I approach the limit I will never reach but that I am a step closer to. You get further and further away with all your he-haw of holisticism that you really don't practice because you are so afraid of the size of the whole that you can't even being to try and embrace it. That failure is what creates your spirituality, your mysticism, your inability to cope with the complex and infinite reality.

Closer to what ?
Every topic that comes on, you come out with the same rhetoric, all of which is unsubstantiated nonsense. You never stop to think what it is you are left with do you? Your magic and luck will not do, even if you do use the get out clause of I don't know, whilst you tell everyone else they are wrong! How ironic.

 

[starlite]

This is a question that Physicist G. Schroeder asks:

Q: Very occasionally monkeys hammering away at typewriters will type out one of Shakespeare's sonnets.

A: Not true, not in this universe. But it is a popular assumption that the monkeys can do it, a wrong assumption that randomness can produce meaningful stable complexity. But let's look at the numbers to see why the monkeys will always fail. I'll take the only sonnet I know, sonnet number 18, “Shall I compare thee to a summer's day …” All sonnets are 14 lines, all about the same length. This sonnet has approximately 488 letters (neglect spaces). With a typewriter or keyboard having 26 letters, the number of possible combinations is 26 to the exponential power of 488 or approximately ten to the power of 690. That is a one with 690 zeros after it. Convert the entire 10 to the 56 grams of the universe (forget working with the monkeys) into computer chips each weighing a billionth of a gram and have each chip type out a billion sonnet trials a second (or 488 billion operations per second) since the beginning of time, ten to the 18th seconds ago. The number of trials will be approximately ten to power of 92, a huge number but minuscule when compared with the 10 to power 690 possible combinations of the letters. We are off by a factor of ten to power of 600. The laws of probability confirm that the universe would have reached its heat death before getting one sonnet. We will never get a sonnet by random trials, and the most basic molecules of life are far more complex than the most intricate sonnet. As reported in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, when the world’s most influential atheist philosopher, Antony Flew, read this analysis of complexity and several analyses related to the complexity of life brought in my third book, The Hidden Face of God, and Roy Varghese’s excellent book, The Wonder of the World, he abandoned his errant belief in a Godless world and publically apologized for leading so many persons astray for the decades that his atheistic thoughts held sway. (Gerald Schroeder Home Page
~~~~~~~

In my own humble way, I could have said that monkeys would not have done that, no matter how much time they had. Time was at one time seen as the ''hero''. But monkeys are monkeys!

Yet time does not always mean there will be sufficient change in order to facilitate the change needed in the first place. Why do we think it does?

So, my question is this: If that is so unlikely for monkeys to do... then, if the multiverse exists, how can we even be sure that they would all be different universes, thus giving us sufficiently correct odds that our universe could develop the way it did. I don't see we have licence to expect such a positive result.

Now there are those who say that this universe might be the proverbial bouncing ball, forever coming into existence and then dying only to be reborn. If so, why should we think that would be any better with the odds?

In other words, if it is so difficult to do, how is time going to help?

A dice with six sides is one thing.... eventually we know that the six will come up. But what of the dice with a trillion sides. Is a six going to come up then?
It is hard to say it ever would, there are just too many chances of it falling onto another number. It might never do! Are we mistakenly thinking it would have to do, just because of an allegiance to some kind of worldly thinking?

And why does probability act the way it does anyway? What drives that?

It appears without intelligence involved in creation, we have no right to expect anything positively happening at all.

How did life get it's start? Did life arise spontaneously from nonliving matter?

Scientists know more about the chemistry and molecular structure of life than ever before, yet they still cannot define with certainty just what life is. A wide gulf separates nonliving matter from even the simplest living cell. Living things are unique in the way they store and process information. Cells convey, interpret, and carry out instructions contained within their genetic code. But evolution cannot explain the source of the information.

Furthermore, protein molecules are necessary for the function of a cell. A typical protein molecule consists of hundreds of amino acids strung together in a specific sequence. “Since a functioning cell requires thousands of different proteins,” writes physicist Paul Davies, “it is not credible to suppose they formed by chance alone.”

I found this to also give evidence for my conclusion...

Animals and humans develop from a single fertilized egg. Inside the embryo, cells multiply and eventually specialize, taking on different shapes and functions to form distinct parts of the body. Evolution cannot explain how each cell “knows” what to become and where it should move within the organism.

After considering these facts, I believe life did not come spontaneously from nonliving matter.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The evidence on the table just points to the fact that we are no closer to understanding the true nature of Reality than ever before. Show me the evidence that says otherwise.



Except that I'm not using a personal definition. I'm referring to standard usage. The support for my claim is inherent in the fact that, according to the materialist view, Reason requires a brain and thought, which just means that a concept must first be formulated about nature as a means of 'understanding' nature. Nature itself doesn't require a brain or thought in order to function as the highly intelligent entity that it is. Humans, with brains, can not even approach what a blade of grass can do in regards to photosynthesis without brains. In our world, we would require more brain power. It's obviously not that way with nature.



Unnecessary. Science has already done that as a multitude of theories abound, none of which can contribute one iota toward knowing what the true nature of Reality is. Religion was largely abandoned because it could not provide spiritual nourishment to man, and now science is being seen the same way. That is why, for example, you see such an avid interest in mysticism today. Zen, Yoga, Sufism, Wicca, New Age, Taoism, all of which are feminine based teachings which do provide such nourishment. Add to this the growing number of bona fide scientists, like Penrose, Goswami, Sheldrake and others who have embraced a mystical view as a necessary part of science as a means of creating a holistic view.



Says reality. Show me where it has worked in terms of knowing what the universe actually IS. Science has come loaded with factual knowledge, but empty handed as far as knowing how to interpret that knowledge. A bigger view is required in order to do that, and that view is the spiritual view, which embraces the entire universe.




I seriously doubt that. You're still looking for something, still seeking. 'I don't know yet' implies still seeking with expectation, as if some new piece of knowledge forthcoming is going to create an epiphany. It won't. It will, as it has demonstrated from all past experience, only lead to more questions. 'Not knowing' mind is completely empty of all baggage, including 'probabilities'. It's not looking for anything in particular. In that way, it can be completely receptive to what is, rather than trying to 'figure out' what might be, when there is nothing to figure out.

It is amazing I think, that there are scientists, who pretty much jeopardize their career, to say things which divine wisdom has been saying for years. So, so interesting that it would though. Enlightenment new that the universe had a beginning before science; it spoke of many worlds and universes before science, and now it sees the consciousness of all things before science. Day by day they seem to be catching up.... but boy do they need a big paradigm change. It is prehistoric scientists that hold it all back, the old guard, who hold on to their comforting thoughts, lest their lives have been a waste.

 

[Robert.Evans]

How did life get it's start? Did life arise spontaneously from nonliving matter?

Scientists know more about the chemistry and molecular structure of life than ever before, yet they still cannot define with certainty just what life is. A wide gulf separates nonliving matter from even the simplest living cell. Living things are unique in the way they store and process information. Cells convey, interpret, and carry out instructions contained within their genetic code. But evolution cannot explain the source of the information.

Furthermore, protein molecules are necessary for the function of a cell. A typical protein molecule consists of hundreds of amino acids strung together in a specific sequence. “Since a functioning cell requires thousands of different proteins,” writes physicist Paul Davies, “it is not credible to suppose they formed by chance alone.”

I found this to also give evidence for my conclusion...

Animals and humans develop from a single fertilized egg. Inside the embryo, cells multiply and eventually specialize, taking on different shapes and functions to form distinct parts of the body. Evolution cannot explain how each cell “knows” what to become and where it should move within the organism.

After considering these facts, I believe life did not come spontaneously from nonliving matter.

It is truly complex, and there is no denying that. The so called processes and mechanisms that are said to bring about so many things ( a sort of artificial intelligence) is fine as an explanation, and largely proved, but where and how do those processes arise in the first place. Ultimately we have to conclude that luck is the answer of the atheist, even though they do not like to accept it.

Chance alone is not going to bring about anything, you are right.

 

[metis]

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.

Again, just another avoidance of the issue. People experience things all the time that have explanations that can be verified, but all I ever get on the issue of "spirituality" is the runaround, which is exactly what I'm getting here. In order to deal with "spirituality", logically we should first establish that there's such things as "spirit(s)", and yet no one seems to be able to producer any.

Now, let me just say that some use the term "spirituality" in a different context, but I'm not referring to that.

 

[godnotgod]

Everything you write implies that you have "the answer", godnotgod. Your specious claim that science can never "reach a true understanding as to the true nature of Reality" is a good example. It's an extraordinary claim with no real merit. IF, and I stress IF, you were being honest and offering a genuine opinion, you could get a pass by saying, "reach a true understanding as to the true nature of Reality - as I perceive it". Oddly, I don't expect the universe to reflect my vision of how it should be.

What I've said has nothing to do with what I may know or not know. It has to do with observing the methodology of science itself, which is basically dissection, the assumption being that a critical piece of 'the puzzle' will at last be found and everything will just fall into place. It also assumes the universe to be merely a collection of dead material things in the manner of a machine. One cannot find the music by dismantling the piano. The music can only be found by listening. In the same manner, we cannot know the true nature of Reality by attempting to reduce it to its smallest denominations as 'parts' ala machine. That will only yield factual information, but tells us nothing. This should be obvious to anyone with a lick of intelligence.

 

[godnotgod]

Again, just another avoidance of the issue. People experience things all the time that have explanations that can be verified, but all I ever get on the issue of "spirituality" is the runaround, which is exactly what I'm getting here. In order to deal with "spirituality", logically we should first establish that there's such things as "spirit(s)", and yet no one seems to be able to producer any.

Now, let me just say that some use the term "spirituality" in a different context, but I'm not referring to that.

You want to pin down rationally what does not operate within the realm of Reason. This is not avoidance, but redirection of one's attention. As I said, the spiritual experience is just that. Sure, people have experiences all the time, and many are delusional. But remember that delusion is the product of thought, and the spiritual experience is not one of the thinking mind, but of the seeing mind. That is to say, it is an experience transcendent of perceptual reality. It is beyond sight, sound, touch, smell, and taste, all of which can deceive. Bottom line, though, is that it can be verified, but not via factual proof. You have to go see for yourself. But what I originally said to you, that that which is observing is the spiritual. It's not an object somewhere 'out there'. It is unconditioned consciousness, which everyone has, but only becomes apparent to them when the chatter of the discriminating mind is quieted down.

 

[thau]

This is a question that Physicist G. Schroeder asks:

Q: Very occasionally monkeys hammering away at typewriters will type out one of Shakespeare's sonnets.

A: Not true, not in this universe. But it is a popular assumption that the monkeys can do it, a wrong assumption that randomness can produce meaningful stable complexity. But let's look at the numbers to see why the monkeys will always fail. I'll take the only sonnet I know, sonnet number 18, “Shall I compare thee to a summer's day …” All sonnets are 14 lines, all about the same length. This sonnet has approximately 488 letters (neglect spaces). With a typewriter or keyboard having 26 letters, the number of possible combinations is 26 to the exponential power of 488 or approximately ten to the power of 690. That is a one with 690 zeros after it. Convert the entire 10 to the 56 grams of the universe (forget working with the monkeys) into computer chips each weighing a billionth of a gram and have each chip type out a billion sonnet trials a second (or 488 billion operations per second) since the beginning of time, ten to the 18th seconds ago. The number of trials will be approximately ten to power of 92, a huge number but minuscule when compared with the 10 to power 690 possible combinations of the letters. We are off by a factor of ten to power of 600. The laws of probability confirm that the universe would have reached its heat death before getting one sonnet. We will never get a sonnet by random trials, and the most basic molecules of life are far more complex than the most intricate sonnet. As reported in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, when the world’s most influential atheist philosopher, Antony Flew, read this analysis of complexity and several analyses related to the complexity of life brought in my third book, The Hidden Face of God, and Roy Varghese’s excellent book, The Wonder of the World, he abandoned his errant belief in a Godless world and publically apologized for leading so many persons astray for the decades that his atheistic thoughts held sway. (Gerald Schroeder Home Page
~~~~~~~

In my own humble way, I could have said that monkeys would not have done that, no matter how much time they had. Time was at one time seen as the ''hero''. But monkeys are monkeys!

Yet time does not always mean there will be sufficient change in order to facilitate the change needed in the first place. Why do we think it does?

So, my question is this: If that is so unlikely for monkeys to do... then, if the multiverse exists, how can we even be sure that they would all be different universes, thus giving us sufficiently correct odds that our universe could develop the way it did. I don't see we have licence to expect such a positive result.

Now there are those who say that this universe might be the proverbial bouncing ball, forever coming into existence and then dying only to be reborn. If so, why should we think that would be any better with the odds?

In other words, if it is so difficult to do, how is time going to help?

A dice with six sides is one thing.... eventually we know that the six will come up. But what of the dice with a trillion sides. Is a six going to come up then?
It is hard to say it ever would, there are just too many chances of it falling onto another number. It might never do! Are we mistakenly thinking it would have to do, just because of an allegiance to some kind of worldly thinking?

And why does probability act the way it does anyway? What drives that?

It appears without intelligence involved in creation, we have no right to expect anything positively happening at all.

['It appears without intelligence involved in creation, we have no right to expect anything positively happening at all."]

Probability is so not on the side of those who believe in evolution without intelligent design, that time is a totally moot ally of theirs.

The question many of us have is simple: How can anybody believe life could come into its own amazingly complex and beautifully ordered stage without intelligent design? No one doubts for a second that the Mona Lisa could assemble itself without a creator, and they have no need to have seen its creation to believe that. Yet, a human cell with a thousand machines inside all occurring by random molecular rendezvous???

Evolutionist high priest Richard Dawkins says in his book - - - "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

“The illusion of design,” Richard? . . . (sigh)

 

[Robert.Evans]

Again, just another avoidance of the issue. People experience things all the time that have explanations that can be verified, but all I ever get on the issue of "spirituality" is the runaround, which is exactly what I'm getting here. In order to deal with "spirituality", logically we should first establish that there's such things as "spirit(s)", and yet no one seems to be able to producer any.

Now, let me just say that some use the term "spirituality" in a different context, but I'm not referring to that.

You can't show metaphysical things. Don't you know that? Show me anything that has already changed. Show me the big bang, not the after effects.