I lack belief that the universe is without gods

[Darkstorn]

so you prefer a non-sentient cause, aka spontaneous, not impossible, but that leap is too far for me!

Non-sentient doesn't automatically mean spontaneous, that's a leap on your part. I believe in cause and effect. Just not that it requires a "causer".

I take your point, though quantum physicists may disagree with us..

I would argue that quantum mechanics isn't necessarily random; we just don't understand it well enough. I simply withhold judgement, and consider that everything is subject to change.

We know that both phenomena exist in the universe, natural mechanisms and creative intelligence.

Firstly, what do you mean by "creative intelligence?" And second: Do we actually know? Do you have evidence?

We know that some objects are naturally created and some intelligently.

Do we now? Do you have evidence to say this with absolute certainty? What's the actual difference between the two?

And we have no reference, no precedent for how universes are 'usually' created do we?

False premise: They need not necessarily be created.

So on what do we base the decision to make one explanation 'default' and put all the burden of proof on the other?

Evidence. The view that has the most evidence behind it tends to win out, rightly in my view. It's not even always about the most likely explanation(there's a potential for huge surprises always). Again, you might be happier living in denial that there's no evidence to facts you don't agree with, but you have to take responsibility for this: There's at least an equal chance that you simply do not understand the evidence.

If we look at the question of the origins of various information systems governing physics and life, one could argue that we only know of intelligent causes for such mathematical systems, and speculating about possible 'natural' causes are the alternative explanation to the default one.. debatable, but that's what we're here for!

First you have to define "intelligent". If you define it as anything supernatural, then one could definitely NOT argue about it in a logical manner: It's dishonest. The other viewpoint has to offer evidence, and the other one doesn't. You CANNOT evidence the supernatural by definition, therefore it has no place in science, therefore the combination of the two is a naive endeavour.

 

[Onyx]

I'm not convinced there's a god, I simply lack belief that the universe is without them.

I used to consider myself an atheist but think I was a bit arrogant now.

I see it like this. You don't have to understand electrical science to flip a switch to turn on a light, and until you do your level of understanding is basically that there is a "god of electricity" that somehow makes it all happen.

That's just an analogy, but for example I can't hold a ruler up to your head and measure your consciousness or record your thoughts, yet there seems to be an unknown force in place that provides each of us our own unique subjective reality and perspective.

Not everything has to make sense from a purely physical standpoint to me, so I share this view.

 

[Darkstorn]

yet there seems to be an unknown force in place that provides each of us our own unique subjective reality and perspective.

Unknown force? How about experience coupled with senses? Your subjective personality is actually a constantly changing process, wholly dependent on the external reality.

So: Your experience of reality around you through your senses leads to your individual self. That's why you're different from everyone else: because your experiences are different.

Your physical existence also has an effect on it: You are not physically identical to everyone else, so you also experience the same things slightly differently from everyone else.

I don't think this is nearly as magical as most people seem to think: You weren't what you are now a year ago. Or 10 years ago. ETC.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Non-sentient doesn't automatically mean spontaneous, that's a leap on your part. I believe in cause and effect. Just not that it requires a "causer".

I understand, I think I meant it in the same sense as you- spontaneous as in unguided process

I would argue that quantum mechanics isn't necessarily random; we just don't understand it well enough. I simply withhold judgement, and consider that everything is subject to change.

We agree here, but what fun is that!

Firstly, what do you mean by "creative intelligence?" And second: Do we actually know? Do you have evidence?

As in what we are using right now to come up with arguments, we know ...

Do we now? Do you have evidence to say this with absolute certainty? What's the actual difference between the two?

... that some objects of our own making require creative input, are conclusively artificial, and some are formed naturally like mountains-

point being that these are based on references, of which we have none for universe creation

False premise: They need not necessarily be created.

semantic again- beginning, origin, formation of, whatever you prefer

Evidence. The view that has the most evidence behind it tends to win out, rightly in my view. It's not even always about the most likely explanation(there's a potential for huge surprises always). Again, you might be happier living in denial that there's no evidence to facts you don't agree with, but you have to take responsibility for this: There's at least an equal chance that you simply do not understand the evidence.

Evidence for an unguided mechanism creating/ forming/ building the universe? Anything specific that you personally find compelling?

First you have to define "intelligent". If you define it as anything supernatural, then one could definitely NOT argue about it in a logical manner: It's dishonest. The other viewpoint has to offer evidence, and the other one doesn't. You CANNOT evidence the supernatural by definition, therefore it has no place in science, therefore the combination of the two is a naive endeavour.

Again otherwise interesting conversations can often get mired in semantics.

I'm defining intelligence as we do our own, a creative capacity, with purpose, desire, goals, things that can only exist in a conscious mind.

And our own intelligence might be described as 'supernatural' in this sense, in that it transcends nature with this unique capacity, can make things happen that nature alone never can.

Further more, if we are looking for an ultimate explanation for 'nature' itself-- then arguably 'super-natural' is a box we want to be able to check- otherwise we are stuck with the paradox:
the laws of nature are ultimately accounted for by... those very same laws.

where creative intelligence solves this paradox

 

[Darkstorn]

I understand, I think I meant it in the same sense as you- spontaneous as in unguided process

Yeah but spontaneous is not the same as unguided.

As in what we are using right now to come up with arguments, we know ...

I just don't see how that's different from "natural mechanics". We're natural after all, not supernatural. I think "intelligence", when applied to mechanics, is anthropomorphizing.

... that some objects of our own making require creative input, are conclusively artificial, and some are formed naturally like mountains-

Ah. It's not "artificial" as much as you may think. Yes, a human built object is designed and mountains weren't necessarily. But it's not an argument for two different mechanics. This is a semantic, a literary point only.

point being that these are based on references, of which we have none for universe creation

Which references exactly?

semantic again- beginning, origin, formation of, whatever you prefer

Consider what forums we are posting on, i don't think it's semantic at all, but a valid point. You always have to make sure.

Evidence for an unguided mechanism creating/ forming/ building the universe? Anything specific?

I'll make you a deal: I'll give you some when you have given me some evidence of a guided mechanism.

In the mean time i'll tell you this: It's more logical to make no conclusion than to make one with no evidence. You have a conclusion, i don't.

Again otherwise interesting conversations can often get mired in semantics.

I've noticed...

I'm defining intelligence as we do our own, a creative capacity, with purpose, desire, goals, things that can only exist in a conscious mind.

What purpose?

Arguably our own intelligence can be described as supernatural in this sense

No, it can APPEAR thus because you don't understand it. I'm not claiming i understand it any better than you, but the difference between us is that you're making definitive statements like this with absolute certainty, while i profess that i can't be totally certain of anything.

in that it transcends nature with this unique capacity, can make things happen that nature alone never can.

How certain are you of this? You seem to enjoy saying extreme things like "that nature alone never can". HOW do you know?

Further more, if we are looking for an ultimate explanation for 'nature' itself-- then arguably 'super-natural' is a box we want to be able to check- otherwise we are stuck with the paradox:
the laws of nature are ultimately accounted for by... those very same laws.

Supernatural by definition is outside the scope of science, you need to understand this. No ifs and buts. If it's supernatural, it's not a scientific argument and any attempt on your part to use it as such is dishonest, naive and done to death.

Do note that if there was evidence for a deity, it would no longer be supernatural. But you can never use supernatural in a scientific argument, because until it HAS been evidenced, it is fantasy completely analogous to invisible pink flying unicorns.

Your personal belief that your supernatural things are "more" worthy than unicorns is just that: A belief. You also need to understand this.

where creative intelligence solves this paradox

I think you're imagining a paradox where there isn't any.

/E: I need to add that in my view there is only "natural mechanics". Only one mechanic so to speak: The universe itself. Anything outside its scope is inconsequential until proven part of the system. There is no intelligent way of using a supernatural argument to try and fill perceived gaps in natural mechanics. Supernatural by definition is outside the natural. And it is fantasy until proven natural.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree. It's convoluted. But without it, the weak atheist disappears. I'm fine with that, but you might have some digital pitchforks pointed your way.

I don't know what digital pitchforks pointed my way entails, but I believe I'm ready.

.

It doesn't just get rid of the implicit atheists who have never heard the term "god" before; it also gets rid of the ignostics who assert that the term is meaningless, improperly defined, internally contradictory, etc.

In your approach, you assume that the statement "the universe has gods" must be evaluatable as either true or false; this is only the case if the term "gods" isn't nonsensical.

Bertrand Russell talked about this problem at length; google "the present king of France is bald" if you want to learn more... but just as the fact that the term "the present king of France" is nonsensical means that the statement "the present king of France is bald" is neither true nor false, for the statement "the universe has gods" to be either true or false, the term "gods" can't be nonsensical.

Short version: you're effectively implying that the ignostic position is wrong. If you're going to make this argument, then do it directly instead of with rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yeah but spontaneous is not the same as unguided.



I just don't see how that's different from "natural mechanics". We're natural after all, not supernatural. I think "intelligence", when applied to mechanics, is anthropomorphizing.



Ah. It's not "artificial" as much as you may think. Yes, a human built object is designed and mountains weren't necessarily. But it's not an argument for two different mechanics. This is a semantic, a literary point only.



Which references exactly?



Consider what forums we are posting on, i don't think it's semantic at all, but a valid point. You always have to make sure.



I'll make you a deal: I'll give you some when you have given me some evidence of a guided mechanism.

In the mean time i'll tell you this: It's more logical to make no conclusion than to make one with no evidence. You have a conclusion, i don't.



I've noticed...



What purpose?



No, it can APPEAR thus because you don't understand it. I'm not claiming i understand it any better than you, but the difference between us is that you're making definitive statements like this with absolute certainty, while i profess that i can't be totally certain of anything.



How certain are you of this? You seem to enjoy saying extreme things like "that nature alone never can". HOW do you know?



Supernatural by definition is outside the scope of science, you need to understand this. No ifs and buts. If it's supernatural, it's not a scientific argument and any attempt on your part to use it as such is dishonest, naive and done to death.

Do note that if there was evidence for a deity, it would no longer be supernatural. But you can never use supernatural in a scientific argument, because until it HAS been evidenced, it is fantasy completely analogous to invisible pink flying unicorns.

Your personal feeling that your supernatural things are "more" worthy than unicorns is just that: A belief. You also need to understand this.



I think you're imagining a paradox where there isn't any.

To simplify the thread, most if this can be summed up..

Semantics aside, we can recognize the unique creative capacity of intelligence, which it has by virtue of being able to harbor desire, purpose, specific goals to act towards, which nature cannot- certainly according to Darwinism for example.

whether or not we call it super-natural for this distinction is a semantic aside. You brought the term up, then put it in my mouth, and then went on to state that anything 'supernatural' can be dismissed - judge, jury, and executioner!

Point being that an intelligent designer of the universe does not have to be any more 'supernatural' than our own intelligence or than the explanation for nature itself demands.

I agree with Krauss on Hawking's multiverse theories for instance 'If your theory requires an invisible infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory'
I also agree with Hawking on Krauss though 'That moron couldn't theorize his way out of a bowl of custard!'


we have no direct empirical evidence of any explanation, but there are other forms

predictive ability
logical deduction
power of explanation

Again we can deduce the existence of an intelligent agent on the beach, where the empirical, testable evidence points only to the waves

On conclusions, we're all taking our best guesses, and I acknowledge my belief, faith as such, do you?

 

[Skwim]

It doesn't just get rid of the implicit atheists who have never heard the term "god" before; it also gets rid of the ignostics who assert that the term is meaningless, improperly defined, internally contradictory, etc.

In your approach, you assume that the statement "the universe has gods" must be evaluatable as either true or false; this is only the case if the term "gods" isn't nonsensical.

Bertrand Russell talked about this problem at length; google "the present king of France is bald" if you want to learn more... but just as the fact that the term "the present king of France" is nonsensical means that the statement "the present king of France is bald" is neither true nor false, for the statement "the universe has gods" to be either true or false, the term "gods" can't be nonsensical.

Short version: you're effectively implying that the ignostic position is wrong. If you're going to make this argument, then do it directly instead of with rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

Actually, I am not assuming anything, but merely pointing out the denotations of different grammatical constructions.

.

 

[Onyx]

Unknown force? How about experience coupled with senses? Your subjective personality is actually a constantly changing process, wholly dependent on the external reality.

So: Your experience of reality around you through your senses leads to your individual self. That's why you're different from everyone else: because your experiences are different.

Your physical existence also has an effect on it: You are not physically identical to everyone else, so you also experience the same things slightly differently from everyone else.

I don't think this is nearly as magical as most people seem to think: You weren't what you are now a year ago. Or 10 years ago. ETC.

I agree with a lot of this. However, I know I'm having a subjective experience right now, and think it's reasonable to assume that other creatures similar to myself are having their own.

It goes beyond physical senses. A robot could sense things and update its internal programs accordingly, but if a robot could have a conscious experience, how would that work? Why would it even be required? Until this and other difficult questions have concrete answers, I can't assume that gods don't exist myself.

 

[Darkstorn]

To simplify the thread, most if this can be summed up..

Semantics aside, we can recognize the unique creative capacity of intelligence, which it has by virtue of being able to harbor desire, purpose, specific goals to act towards, which nature cannot- certainly according to Darwinism for example.

I don't care about Darwinism, but this is fact: You cannot with any certainty say that nature cannot explain things that are found within nature. It's a fool's errand.

You have not shown in any capacity that nature cannot account for the things you claim. You make a definite statement, the burden of proof is on you. I refuse to make claims regarding the universe i cannot know for certain.

whether or not we call it super-natural for this distinction is a semantic aside.

You are claiming that it is not explained by nature, thus the burden of proof is on you. Why would it be supernatural? I don't even care about evidence: I want you to try and convince me using logic because you have given absolutely nothing of content regarding your statements. You just make a statement and never explain how you came to be so certain of it.

You brought the term up, then put it in my mouth, and then went on to state that anything 'supernatural' can be dismissed - judge, jury, and executioner!

I didn't put it in your mouth: I claimed that supernatural cannot be used in a scientific context by definition of the word itself. I am NOT making claims that something we perceive as supernatural cannot exist; But if it does, it would by definition, no longer be supernatural.

Point being that an intelligent designer of the universe does not have to be any more 'supernatural' than our own intelligence or than the explanation for nature itself demands.

Here's an important part: True. The problem is, something that is currently perceived supernatural due to complete and total lack of any kind of evidence, is supernatural and not natural: And cannot be used as an argument in a scientific context. It's at best belief, at worst guessing: The very thing many theists accuse theories of being.

It's not impossible, by any means. But i don't make leaps of faith, and i withhold judgement. But until evidenced, it's no more substantial than the potential existence of magic, or unicorns.

I agree with Krauss on Hawking's multiverse theories for instance 'If your theory requires an invisible infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory'
I also agree with Hawking on Krauss though 'That moron couldn't theorize his way out of a bowl of custard!'

I'm pretty certain that "invisible infinite probability machine" is a joke about creationists...

we have no empirical evidence of any explanation, but there are other forms

predictive ability
logical deduction
power of explanation

Problem is, you haven't been able to convince me logically or through power of explanation. In fact, you make several definitive statements, and you act as if they are absolutely certain. You never explain those statements. You just make the statement.

Again we can deduce the existence of an intelligent agent on the beach, where the empirical, testable evidence points only to the waves

We can only deduce the probable effect at best. You cannot be this certain of anything! Nothing is certain.

On conclusions, we're all taking our best guesses, and I acknowledge my belief, faith as such, do you?

Well, you're welcome to try and find statements regarding the universe and existence by me, but i've specifically avoided those because i honestly believe that i cannot be certain of anything. Ever. I withhold judgement in ALL things. I don't like making definitive statements about reality.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't care about Darwinism, but this is fact: You cannot with any certainty say that nature cannot explain things that are found within nature. It's a fool's errand.

You have not shown in any capacity that nature cannot account for the things you claim. You make a definite statement, the burden of proof is on you. I refuse to make claims regarding the universe i cannot know for certain.



You are claiming that it is not explained by nature, thus the burden of proof is on you. Why would it be supernatural? I don't even care about evidence: I want you to try and convince me using logic because you have given absolutely nothing of content regarding your statements. You just make a statement and never explain how you came to be so certain of it.

You claim that the default explanation for nature itself, is nature itself... not only is this not a default explanation, for something utterly without precedent or reference, it's an inherent and unique paradox.

I simply lack belief in this paradoxical claim.

I didn't put it in your mouth: I claimed that supernatural cannot be used in a scientific context by definition of the word itself. I am NOT making claims that something we perceive as supernatural cannot exist; But if it does, it would by definition, no longer be supernatural.

Here's an important part: True. The problem is, something that is currently perceived supernatural due to complete and total lack of any kind of evidence, is supernatural and not natural: And cannot be used as an argument in a scientific context. It's at best belief, at worst guessing:

I'm not sure which you are referring to here, M Theory? String theory? Multiverses? Big Crunch, steady state?

I'm pretty certain that "invisible infinite probability machine" is a joke about creationists...

no, multiverses

Problem is, you haven't been able to convince me logically or through power of explanation. In fact, you make several definitive statements, and you act as if they are absolutely certain. You never explain those statements. You just make the statement.

I certainly don't expect to convince you of anything, I'm not that good! But tot he point of the OP, I am simply trying to have you see your own belief as such. You may be entirely right, but there is no default explanation for a phenomena so without precedent to reference, any explanation must stand on it's own merits, and if your evidence for your belief is strong, you have nothing to worry about.

We can only deduce the probable effect at best. You cannot be this certain of anything! Nothing is certain.

Well, you're welcome to try and find statements regarding the universe and existence by me, but i've specifically avoided those because i honestly believe that i cannot be certain of anything. Ever. I withhold judgement in ALL things. I don't like making definitive statements about reality.

I agree, nothing is certain, but we both know where our money is, right?

 

[jonathan180iq]

How can you be a materialist but believe physical objects and their sizes are entirely subjective?

Because we interpret objectivity subjectively. And all of our objective measurements are simply constructs, like Time, for example.

We, as part of the whole, cannot with any degree of accuracy, measure or construct a Universal time. We can frame it so that we can understand it. But it will never truly be accurate, because we have no frame of reference for beginning. All measurements work the same way. Numbers too - What are numbers but simply a placeholder of value which we have attributed to a thing? What are words, other than arbitrary descriptors? What are definitions, other than ever-changing conglomerates of words?

Imagine you and I standing on opposite ends of a table, a black cube resting between us. There are, literally, thousands of ways in which we can describe the cube. We can objectively measure all aspects of the cube - never once agreeing on which method BEST describes the cube, and each method can still be accurate. Do you follow?

You maintain faith in entities, or beings, that are entirely without substantive supporting data. Any theist worth their salt will openly admit that. Yet you think your worldview is accurate. You wouldn't believe in something if it weren't true, right?

I live my life the same way, openly rejecting the very idea of invisible magic sky people who intervene in my life...

Back to the crux of my questions to you, though - which of us is right? How do we know that we are right? Who even cares?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, I am not assuming anything, but merely pointing out the denotations of different grammatical constructions..

So is the present king of France bald or not bald?

 

[Darkstorn]

You claim that the default explanation for nature itself, is nature itself... not only is this not a default explanation, for something utterly without precedent or reference, it's an inherent and unique paradox.

I didn't claim anything like that. I merely said it's foolish to try to argue that things found within nature cannot be explained by things within nature. Unless you are literally putting stock into something not found in nature: I.E something that cannot by literal definition exist. When i do say nature, i mean the universe: If you try to explain it with something not found in the universe, you are introducing an idea that... Well, is not part of the universe, thus cannot be used to explain the universe.

It's not a paradox: Just because you can't see the answers in the universe explained by things found within it, doesn't mean there aren't any. Paradoxes are a logical issue: There is no logical issue regarding this.

I simply lack belief in this paradoxical claim.

It's not paradoxical. Just because we don't fully understand something doesn't mean it's a paradox in the first place. You're constantly making this same mistake. Further more: You are welcome to not have faith in it. But you are NOT welcome to try and use it as an argument for science: Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean YOU get the change its rules.

To introduce ideas that cannot be evidenced as premise to try and explain things is not scientific. It's simple as this: You are making the mistake of thinking we're arguing for a theistic / atheistic origination of the universe here. We're actually not: I'm an only here to explain to you that you are making some claims, refusing to elaborate on them, and then thinking i'm arguing for some sort of claim, and then you argue that perceived claim. I'm not arguing for a position regarding the universe here: I am arguing that your argumentative style is severely lacking.

I literally ask you to explain any of your points, and you just introduce new claims instead.

You also claim that it's a paradox that you could explain things found within nature by things found within nature. Yet it's not paradoxical to explain things found within nature by things NOT found within nature? This is cognitive dissonance.

By definition, a deity would be within the universe if evidence was found.

I'm not sure which you are referring to here, M Theory? String theory? Multiverses? Big Crunch, steady state?

Um, none of them? I am arguing the logic behind supernatural vs natural there, nothing else.

no, multiverses

If you say so. Oh, i want you to actually verify those quotes. I don't think they're real.

I still think it's a joke. In a non-ironic way.

I certainly don't expect to convince you of anything, I'm not that good! But tot he point of the OP, I am simply trying to have you see your own belief as such.

Which beliefs?

You may be entirely right, but there is no default explanation for a phenomena so without precedent to reference, any explanation must stand on it's own merits, and if your evidence for your belief is strong, you have nothing to worry about

I never said there's a default explanation: You did. You made SEVERAL DEFINITIVE STATEMENTS AND CLAIMS. You DIDN'T ELABORATE ON ANY OF THEM. You made unsubstantiated claims and treated them as something more than your subjective view. That's what i'm doing in this thread: I'm asking you to explain your own points. You just make a statement and you NEVER explain it, even when people ask you to.

You'll notice i have not made statements like:

"in that it transcends nature with this unique capacity, can make things happen that nature alone never can."

You'll notice for example, that i do not claim that nature cannot explain those things, NOR that it DOES explain those things. I am making essentially no claims regarding that at all. I'm a pointing out that you are making an unsubstantiated, definitive statement of absolute certainty with no evidence: You are having "default explanations."

NOTHING can be reduced to such a level that you can say it with absolute certainty.

I agree, nothing is certain, but we both know where our money is, right?

Correction: You seem to, i make no claims that i know it'll even rain ever again. It's a mistake for you to think you're arguing with an atheist. Your bias is too loaded.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I didn't claim anything like that. I merely said it's foolish to try to argue that things found within nature cannot be explained by things within nature. Unless you are literally putting stock into something not found in nature: I.E something that cannot by literal definition exist. When i do say nature, i mean the universe: If you try to explain it with something not found in the universe, you are introducing an idea that... Well, is not part of the universe, thus cannot be used to explain the universe.

creative intelligence itself, and creative intelligence as a means of originating information systems like those essential for the functionality of the universe and life in it, is absolutely, unambiguously found in the universe itself, and you are using evidence of it right now.

Naturalistic mechanisms ever being able to achieve the same, without any creative input whatsoever? It's an interesting philosophical speculation, but not much luck here yet, perhaps one day- I don't rule anything out. But as fashionable as this concept was in the Victorian age, it has faced ever increasing hurdles in the face of scientific discovery, especially in this 21st C information age

To introduce ideas that cannot be evidenced as premise to try and explain things is not scientific.-

see above, I appreciate your detailed responses and the deserve an answer but you are making the same point here several times.

You also claim that it's a paradox that you could explain things found within nature by things found within nature. Yet it's not paradoxical to explain things found within nature by things NOT found within nature? This is cognitive dissonance.

i.e. it is paradoxical to explain the natural function of this forum software by that same function,- the software did not and could not write itself. To deduce creative input in the process is not paradoxical, it is a logical necessity.

Um, none of them? I am arguing the logic behind supernatural vs natural there, nothing else.

We have no more empirical evidence for those things than faeries or ghosts,

I am less interested in whether something is labeled 'supernatural' or 'scientific'
I am more interested in whether or not something is true, I think we all are?

By definition, a deity would be within the universe if evidence was found.

I think this is a very good point, if we define the universe in it's widest possible sense, 'all existence' then yes. God is an inherent part of that.

If you say so. Oh, i want you to actually verify those quotes. I don't think they're real.

I still think it's a joke. In a non-ironic way.

The first one was real, I heard him say it during a talk and specifically referencing Hawking, but I can sadly find no link, so feel free to dismiss that quote, but he is open about his disdain for multiverse theory

The second one was a joke yes

Which beliefs?

my point exactly!

I never said there's a default explanation: You did. You made SEVERAL DEFINITIVE STATEMENTS AND CLAIMS. You DIDN'T ELABORATE ON ANY OF THEM. You made unsubstantiated claims and treated them as something more than your subjective view. That's what i'm doing in this thread: I'm asking you to explain your own points. You just make a statement and you NEVER explain it, even when people ask you to.

You'll notice i have not made statements like:

"in that it transcends nature with this unique capacity, can make things happen that nature alone never can."

fair enough, but I did not think this statement was controversial enough to need any explanation.

Our creative intelligence can produce many things that unguided natural mechanisms cannot, you are using one right now, that's all that is meant by this. But more significantly, what creative intelligence can fundamentally produce, is genuinely novel information systems, and this is key to all reality, this is a whole nother can of worms though.

NOTHING can be reduced to such a level that you can say it with absolute certainty.

As I said, I agree entirely, I wish everyone agreed with us

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact: Dawkins


I acknowledge faith, that I may be wrong, but we both take stab at deducing the best answer, nothing wrong with that, we wouldn't get too far as a race otherwise right?

Let's put it this way, you have a billion$, to place on red (intelligent agent) or black, (materialistic/ naturalistic unguided process) as an ultimate explanation for all reality

anything you win goes to your favorite charity, anything you lose or don't bet goes to Trump's re-election campaign

You can split the bet any way you like, how much do you put on each?



Again I appreciate the civil debate here, it's more than many posters here can do

 

[paarsurrey]

To me it just doesn't make sense. I haven't seen convincing arguments or evidence that the universe could exist as is without god(s). Does anyone have such arguments and evidence that you can share?

One is perfectly OK with it. Truth exists irrespective of the proofs and evidences. Evident needs no proofs and evidences, necessarily.
Regards