Nontheist

[ppp]

So you are not making any claims and are just neither, nor on the proposition.

I am claiming that I am not convinced by the claim.

That means you affirm with certainty that the universe is nothing more than natural laws that operate completely without intelligence.

Phew! Glad I havent done that!

I never claimed the universe is an intelligent agent.

I have a conviction that the universe is a product of ongoing intelligence fundamentally, and agency is responsible though not an attribute of the universe as a whole.

Okay. You claimed that then. Evidence? Or just idle speculation?

The evidence would be fine tuning in the universe, DNA coding, and human form and function.

Ok.

Bob: There is a dead body on the floor.
Frank: He was murdered.
Bob: How do you know?
Frank: There is a butler.

 

[osgart]

If there is an intelligence guiding evolution would we not expect to see more balance and less brutality as time goes on?

Not necessarily, no. Intelligence runs up against physical limitations and maximizes efficiency in dealing with entropy.

There's no telling how smart evolution is because of the physical limitations placed on it. It makes the most of what is there.

Besides intelligence doesn't equal perfection. Even if intelligence is not very high it's still involved.

 

[F1fan]

Not necessarily, no. Intelligence runs up against physical limitations and maximizes efficiency in dealing with entropy.

So this intelligence you think exists and guides evolution did not create material and the physical laws?

There's no telling how smart evolution is because of the physical limitations placed on it. It makes the most of what is there.

Well you can make a good guess when the best it can do includes defects and cancers. How about mental illnesses, is that blamed on a limitation, too? Gee whiz the intelligence can manage to guide quite a few sane people so why not all humans? And why bother with an intelligence guiding anything when it can't do a very good job of it?

Besides intelligence doesn't equal perfection. Even if intelligence is not very high it's still involved.

Then why advocate for it?

And brake check: you haven't offered any evidence that such an inteligence exists, so saying it is involved in such a definitive way is not true.

 

[osgart]

this intelligence you think exists and guides evolution did not create material and the physical laws

That's right. It works with what's already there and forms and shapes occurrences until patterns and regularities emerge, and eventually life.

It works by trial and error. It's an autonomous learning system. There's no all or nothing results. I would never consider it to be all knowing. It evolves and learns and is not the agency responsible for it. The mental world supervenes on the physical. Not everything mental is alive. So I'm talking about a non living intelligence.

 

[lukethethird]

That's right. It works with what's already there and forms and shapes occurrences until patterns and regularities emerge, and eventually life.

It works by trial and error. It's an autonomous learning system. There's no all or nothing results. I would never consider it to be all knowing. It evolves and learns and is not the agency responsible for it. The mental world supervenes on the physical. Not everything mental is alive. So I'm talking about a non living intelligence.

Why call it intelligence? Gravity among other things allows for planets and suns etc., to form. Without gravity we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[F1fan]

That's right. It works with what's already there and forms and shapes occurrences until patterns and regularities emerge, and eventually life.

What evidence do you have?

It works by trial and error. It's an autonomous learning system. There's no all or nothing results. I would never consider it to be all knowing. It evolves and learns and is not the agency responsible for it. The mental world supervenes on the physical. Not everything mental is alive. So I'm talking about a non living intelligence.

Trial and error? You might as well claim it’s a monkey throwing dice.

 

[danieldemol]

Not everything mental is alive

Can you give me an example of something mental that is not living? The only things which I can be certain of that exist have living brains in order to have any sort of mental state.

 

[osgart]

Can you give me an example of something mental that is not living? The only things which I can be certain of that exist have living brains in order to have any sort of mental state.

The DNA code that is transcribed to the RNA has information read by the ribosome to make proteins. That is an intelligent process using information. The coding process cannot be considered to be alive itself.

 

[osgart]

Why call it intelligence? Gravity among other things allows for planets and suns etc., to form. Without gravity we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Because it takes a plan and forethought to create human function and form otherwise the body would be senselessly non functional.

What causes gravity, or what causes the curvature of spacetime that makes gravity happen? Why stop at gravity as an ultimate explanation? How did gravity come to be?

What about the precise constants in the fine tuning of the universe?

 

[danieldemol]

The DNA code that is transcribed to the RNA has information read by the ribosome to make proteins. That is an intelligent process using information. The coding process cannot be considered to be alive itself.

It is not intelligent either;
Definition of intelligence;
"the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."
Source: define intelligence - Google Search

 

[osgart]

It is not intelligent either;
Definition of intelligence;
"the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."
Source: define intelligence - Google Search

It knows how to apply the information the ribosome reads to produce the protein needed for a particular body function. And it skillfully delivers the protein to the right location.

 

[danieldemol]

Because it takes a plan and forethought to create human function and form otherwise the body would be senselessly non functional.

There have been plenty of non-functional bodies still-born. They die and the functional ones survive and reproduce. No plan and forethought or other non-sequitur required in my view.

What causes gravity, or what causes the curvature of spacetime that makes gravity happen? Why stop at gravity as an ultimate explanation? How did gravity come to be?

We don't know yet. This doesn't mean we are stopping at gravity as an ultimate explanation, it just means there is stuff we still have to learn.

What about the precise constants in the fine tuning of the universe?

What about the precise way water shapes as it fills a puddle? It happens due to natural properties, no intelligence is observed to guide it in my opinion .

And why stop at intelligence as the ultimate explanation? What causes intelligence or how did intelligence come to be?

 

[danieldemol]

It knows how to apply the information the ribosome reads to produce the protein needed for a particular body function. And it skillfully delivers the protein to the right location.

And I suppose you would say that fire "knows" how to combine oxygen and hydrogen and skilfully delivers the atoms to the correct location.

Talk about anthropomorphism of a blind chemical reaction in my opinion.

 

[PureX]

Well, yes, and believers have long treated God as a real entity without apparently noticing [he] never appears, says or does and has no description appropriate for a real entity. Even the unicorn is better off than God in that regard.

No one cares what believers believe. That is their own business. This discussion is about theism, not what some believers believe. You asked me to explain "God" in a theism context. That's what I'm doing. And it has nothing to do with anyone's belief. It has to do with the profoundly unknown, and our human fear of the unknown, and how most humans choose to negotiate with the unknown so as to deal with their fear of it. That's theism. That's what the God ideal is about, and for. And it's a cognitive phenomenon, not a "thing".

But God exists, and gods and other supernatural beings exist, solely as concepts / things imagined in individual brains.

They exist as much more then that. They are part of a universal human cognitive phenomenon. And please keep in mind that this phenomenon is just as grounded is human physicality as every other human cognitive phenomena is. We cognate God the same way we cognate infinity, or perfection, or randomocity, or luck. These are all cognitive meta-ideas that we use to develop and evaluate our other ideas of existence. They are not "things". They are cognitive phenomena. So please stop asking for evidence of their "thing-ness". There is none, because these kinds of cognitive meta-ideas aren't things.

Search the world external to the self and there's no trace of them.

There is no "world external to the self". That is a delusion peddled by philosophical materialism. Apart from cognition, there is no "world". There is no "self". There is no God. There is no anything. "I think, therefor I am." "I don't think, therefor ... nothing."

No gods existing in nothingness is of no consequence, whatever. Yet for some reason you keep asserting this as if it's of the utmost importance. When it can't possibly be of any import at all.

Otherwise atheists would have nowhere to stand, and religion wouldn't be losing its fans in the First World.

Atheists and religion have nothing to do with theism.

The world would be a dull place without mysteries. But at least from my point of view, we work to solve mysteries in order to understand them, whether they be local and personal, or those of world-class stage magicians, or about the nature and origin of the cosmos; and we only take pleasure in the sensation of being mystified (on those occasions when we might do so) while we're on our way to seeking to solve them.

Solving mysteries regarding physical interactions is all well and good, but it's not really solving the great and profound mystery of existence, and of our being a part of it. Nor will it ever. And if you think it will, you have fallen into the delusion of scientism.

 

[ppp]

It knows how to apply the information the ribosome reads to produce the protein needed for a particular body function.

You are claiming that just because that just because a magnet sticks to the fridge that the magnet is self-aware.

 

[F1fan]

Because it takes a plan and forethought to create human function and form otherwise the body would be senselessly non functional.

Really? How do you know it takes a plan and forethought? As I noted look at defects and cancers, how does that work with your claim? Birth defects MUST be planned for your claim to work. Are defects intelligent? Would you design some humans with defects?

What causes gravity, or what causes the curvature of spacetime that makes gravity happen? Why stop at gravity as an ultimate explanation? How did gravity come to be?

It's how matter behaves according to the laws of physics. Why assume gravity is caused? Why assume something causes anything that is how nature functions due to the laws?

If you want to ask what caused the laws, we don't know if they were caused, or if they always existed. So it's a question in limbo, and asking doesn't force us to make a guess. You seem willing to guess, and by guessing you seem to think you have a valid answer.

What about the precise constants in the fine tuning of the universe?

Constants are just part of nature. And there is no such thing as fine tuning, that is a religious belief.

 

[osgart]

And I suppose you would say that fire "knows" how to combine oxygen and hydrogen and skilfully delivers the atoms to the correct location.

Talk about anthropomorphism of a blind chemical reaction in my opinion.

That is your assumption that it is blindly doing this. There's a code involved and it needs to be transcribed and read to deliver the proper protein.
Why go through all this trouble if it were blind reaction? There's digital information involved.

There's no reason why intelligence should be restricted to human beings.

 

[F1fan]

And why stop at intelligence as the ultimate explanation? What causes intelligence or how did intelligence come to be?

Excellent question that reveals how guessing about causes is not only a dead end, it opens the door to more questions that can't be answered.

 

[F1fan]

That is your assumption that it is blindly doing this.

You're assuming intelligence, why can't can't he assume something? Which is the most plausible assumption? Yours is highly problematic since it causes more questions, like birth defects and cancers, which you can't explain.

There's a code involved and it needs to be transcribed and read to deliver the proper protein.

If it doesn't, the organism fails. Only the successful processes will work and go on to reproduce.

Why go through all this trouble if it were blind reaction? There's digital information involved.

It's trouble? Not a very intelligent thing to do.

There's no reason why intelligence should be restricted to human beings.

Right, dogs, cats, dolphins, elephants, seals, and many other non-human animals have intelligence.

 

[osgart]

Really? How do you know it takes a plan and forethought? As I noted look at defects and cancers, how does that work with your claim? Birth defects MUST be planned for your claim to work. Are defects intelligent? Would you design some humans with defects?

I'm not claiming design. I'm claiming naturally occuring intelligence. The errors would be unintentional. Intelligence has to work with natural constraints and limitations. The errors and defects are side effects.

I differentiate blind reaction from sophisticated function. It's not sophisticated in the sense of being perfect and ideal, it's sophisticated in the sense that it allows synchronized coherent function of the body. There's only so much time, and physics to work with for intelligence to work naturally. If the supernatural existed then you could expect perfection, but I don't defend that.

Blind chemical reaction falls short of explaining human form and function. Blind chemical reaction produces fire, not functional systems.