God is not intelligent

That's the point, I have no ****ing idea what you are talking about. Which is why I ask.

When you accuse someone of saying something, quote them, it's courtesy.

If you are too lazy, there is only one appropriate place for you, the ignore function.

Later.

 

It's been billions since the big bang, but time may be infinite. And I'm not talking about a physical replica. If, as a non-creationist position would dictate, our lives are nothing but a collection of chemical interactions, then over enough time an individual's consciousness would be duplicated.

Genetics don't determine consciousness otherwise identical twins would share a consciousness.

I don't ascribe to any of those positions, but for those who do, reincarnation would be explainable.

 

We don't know what creates consciousness and self identity. So at best your claim is a huge assumption.

And right now it looks like the universe will die a heat death. Life will not always be possible.

 

Let's start off with your syntactical critique, here, since it is so easy to address. Here is my quote, to which it refers:

At most, you are only pushing off the determination, one step further removed; that is, either:
1) the order within this chaos, from which proceeded all else,

I don't know why you find this sentence to be at all obscure, for it isn't, in the least. The subject of that bolded part, is "order." The phrase, "within this chaos," is merely describing, specifying, to which order I am referring. Let us try substituting other terms, to see if it makes this idea clearer: the superhero, beneath the cape & within the tights, who effected our rescue. Do you wonder, here, if I am trying to say that perhaps the cape or tights were the parties responsible for the rescue?

This example is indicative of your entire reply, which completely & repeatedly ignores an all-important facet of the equation: yes, the forces of nature create an order, without possessing their own intelligences. But when we speak of the origin of all these natural forces, it is quite another matter. My point is that the reason that the forces of the universe & of nature are so well balanced, such an orderly chaos, is by design. You can explain magnetism and gravity as simply thoughtless phenomenon; that does not explain why they come together in such a particular way. Therein lies the "design;" otherwise, all is just a happy accident. Again, I don't know why you cannot see that these are the only two possibilities.

So, if you are going to credit the Divine, as the source for all natural phenomena, you must address how it provided for their interaction in such an orderly way. Instead, you seem to be saying that all these well-balanced potentials pre-existed, within the Divine. So I am replying that, by not treating the "heredity," so to speak, of the Divine, as Self-endowed, you cannot escape answering for the harmony which exists within it. In other words, it cannot be taken for granted, as you apparently do, that "chaos," would "naturally," form into an "orderly," arrangement. The question is: why does it? The answer can only be either, 1) that is its design, or 2) we lucked out, with this completely random, accidental, billion to one shot. If God just happened to contain the seeds for a wonderfully counterbalanced universe, they came to be there either by unbelievably fortunate, dumb luck, or due to some "intelligence's" design.

Yes , I can see why one might not wish to speak of it that way, as then one might be hard-pressed to say that there is no intelligence in the universal design, and that its evolution, leading to our own evolution, was nothing more than a coincidence.
The rest of your thought, which I omitted, basically relies on the concept that, if the universe were infinite, in both time as well as area-- both of which, our science say is untrue-- then it really would not be all that special that, eventually, in one of the universes (which is probably more like what you had meant, by saying, "if our universe is finite or infinite"), we would come to be. We would be, however, incredibly blessed, ourselves, to be part of this exceptional time and place.

Wrong. 100% randomness does not, typically, produce an "orderly functionality." Take a box of pencils, open it, and then eject them, en masse, into the air. See if they come down in any "functional," construction: a simple log cabin, for example, or a diagram of the molecular structure of DNA. I think you will be disappointed, by the results.

Speaking of "razor sharp," use of language, that is lacking, here. Are you actually saying that you see no reason to presume intelligence behind all the cohesively- fitting, natural processes, which maintain our world? I must disagree with that evaluation, in the strongest manner possible.

Still wrong. Just any assortment of forces will not yield, what appears to be, "seemingly orderly outcomes." What is your proof, for this assertion?

Well, at least, here, you delineate that there are but two choices: Chance, or "predictable forces," but you do not acknowledge that these forces would be predictable, because they were orchestrated, thought out, planned, the product of what we would call reason.

You offer no reason, BTW, that you feel, "it is safe to presume is that it did not occur by a 'intelligent designer.'"

 

You misunderstood me. At first I had said that either the laws of Nature had developed randomly, or that there had been some intelligence, some design, behind them. You replied that because there is order in the universe, does not mean that the forces of the universe are intelligences. This was your first misunderstanding. I explained that the assembling of this particular ensemble of forces, that interact as they do, is the intelligent design.

You responded with the ambiguous logic that the reason that physical forces are thus, is because they came from God, but that they existed that way, naturally, within God. I called this, essentially a cop out of an answer; but then I humored your little game of what seemed just to be "push off the determination," between Chance or Randomness, one additional degree. That is, if the order for Chaos came from God's nature, one must account for how it got there, not propose, "it just was," as any sort of answer.

In my explanation, that I don't think you quoted in its entirety, at least not together, as it belonged, I said that if one did not wish to regard God's Nature as something Self- endowed, but as something cognate in God, at Its inception-- as it appeared that you were attempting to do-- this did not relieve you of the decision of whether it was as it was, due to chance, or by design; if God Itself was not responsible for Its nature then, logically, whatever made God, was responsible.

Do you now understand? You needn't explain to me that the universal driving Force, and God, are one in the same: that is what I believe. But I would therefore hold God Itself accountable for Its traits. You were writing these off as if they were essentially like the physical forces in the universe; that is, God's traits just were. So, for one who is taking this tack-- i.e., you-- instead of deciding whether or not God, the Force at the core of our universe, had determined the interrelating of its own nature, which would become, or be a cue to, the interacting forces, bringing order to universal "chaos," in the physical realm, such a person would, in that case, only be faced with that same question, when it came to (in the situation you seemed to depict), the Creator of God. That is, once more, there are but two real choices: either God was self-creating (in which instance It would also have created its own nature-- it wouldn't just be that way), or something else created It.

To my mind, evading the question by just calling it a "Mystery," is the truly simplistic approach. And calling my common sense proposition a "syllogism," does not refute its logical conclusion. Nor does simply "explaining" it, as a Mystery. This really is pure sophistry: words that sound good, but do not put forth any logical argument. Another name for syllogism, BTW, is deductive reasoning, and I make no apologies (nor do I feel any are due), for using this. While it may be insufficient to answer all questions, it is certainly a step above just calling something unexplainable, and so applying no logical basis to your ideas.

You basically invalidate the idea of your thread, here. Unless you are making the case that to attempt to apply the best tool our minds have given us, reasoned deduction, to this question, is "a fool's errand," but that merely asserting (as if one had any an idea of that, of which one spoke) one's beliefs, based solely on one's feelings, plus the ideas one has heard about, and which appeal to him, is something above a fool's pastime? If so, I would gladly debate that proposition with you; this would require you though, to employ rational argument, you realize?

 

There is no such thing as a "proven" scientific theory. The term "theory" is as good as it gets, and even that requires all kinds of testing, retesting, peer review, repeatability, and probably more descriptors than I can come up with names for.

 

The reverse is True

 

Scientific theories are commonly proven to become fact. Nuclear fission involves breaking up atoms. The heart is a pump that moves blood around the body. Water is a molecule made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Obviously I or you could go on. These are not theories. Nobody is questioning them.

 

I'll accept that.

If you mean 'origin' insofar as a beginning at a point in time, then no. I'm referring solely to a source without connotations of a beginning point. Or perhaps you are using the terms interchangeably, you tell me.

I don't think so. You simply can't conclude that balances achieved in nature, such an orderly chaos, based on available evidence, given the simple fact that, in physics, as I understand it (noting I'm a layman) that equilibriums (inclusive of 'orderly chaos') of nature can be achieved by a natural randomity of forces.

I can understand your sentiment in this regard, but the universe is so vast, and the human mind so infinitesimally small compared to it, what are the odds we humans can get it right about the creation of the universe? I don't think it's reasonable, therefore, to conclude we, as humans, and demonstrated by are limited imagination, we can possibly presume the whys and wherefores of the universe, or especially that it can be reduced to a syllogism. The truth of the creation of the universe is a mystery. At some point, we must accept that and enjoy it. "Life is not a problem to be solved, it is a mystery to be lived' (see my sig)

If I were to venture some kind of guess, it would be the notion that it's beyond our understanding of matter/energy and space/time, way way way way beyond it about which there is some paradigm for it beyond our comprehension.

I mean, nature will grant mankind some of her secrets, but the big Kahuna, the ultimate truth, she's not going to let us in on that one, not now, not tomorrow, not ever ( methinks ).

'Divine' has a strong religious component. I'm not actually crediting it. So, to get closer to my meaning, my intent, we must strip away all connotations afforded by Christianity.

I mean the term in a sense of poetic grace, not in the Christian sense of a 'supreme being'. In fact, my philosophy can be stated equally without the term. The term, as I use it, serves merely is a nice ribbon on the concept.

Since I'm not using the term in the way you are implying it, which, I assume, is the traditional way, no, we mustn't.

The 'why' of the universe is unknowable. If I know anything, I know that. Perhaps I"m wrong, but I feel strongly that is a safe presumption, and my sentiment in that regard is confirmed by a number of mystics of whom I accept as having deeper insight that I have.

See above.

Again, you are committing the logical fallacy of a binary either/or syllogism. The truth is probably beyond such a simplistic notion.

I repeat, the creation of the universe is a mystery. At some point, we must accept that it is and enjoy that fact and celibrate that fact.

Based on available evidence, there is none by which one can conclude, logically, that 'intelligent design' is true. Certainly, it is not upheld in science. In fact, it conflicts with science, and I stated at the outset, my 'philosophy' shall not conflict with science ( and if and when it does, I'll defer to science because my 'faith', the strength of my faith is derived to be harmonious with science, and that when I assert that there is a divine source of the universe, I limit that term's usage to mean only that there is a spiritual basis to life, but it is not an intelligence, it could, perhaps, be thought of in terms of a force, though a spiritual one beyond detection of available scientific instruments. To reiterate, I used the term more as poetic grace than as religious term, which I assume you are using it).

It's just an 'IF'. Nothing more. 'Special' requires sentiment, a point of view, and the universe, the 'why' of it, most certainly is beyond human emotion and/or human point of view. The universe is neither special nor not special, it just is. 'Divine' is a poetic sentiment. My philosophy can be stated just as well without the term.

Well, you just said 'typically', which means that occasionally it does, and it's just enough to explain the visible ordered chaos that exists in the universe.

Overall, you are committing a logical fallacy. We can prove this by the Reductio ad absurdum method.

Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable.

See, that is the essence of your argument. You mind is uncomfortable with the concept that the universe cannot have been created without an intelligent designer, therefore it must be true. Those who adhere to this contention do so because they cannot comprehend there is anything beyond it which precludes it. However, I contend that it is not logical nor imaginative to reduce the whys an wherefores of the universe to the famous 'finding a watch in the desert presumes the watch was designed', which is the essence of your argument, eh? Why? Because the universe is vastly more dimensional, dynamic, and vast to be reduced to such a simplistic syllogism. The whole prime mover for ID arises out of the poverty of man's imagination ( courtesy of Bertrand Russell)

Moreover, though your example works in the example, it doesn't work across the board, which you acknowledge by using the word 'typically' which implies it does, occasionally. And, if it does, occasionally, create ordered chaos without intelligence, then we can't presume the universe has an intelligent designer.

To wit: Look at a spiraled galaxy, it happened by pure randomity of particles moving, coagulating, repelling, attracting, and all of the forces at play, all randomly in space.

If that doesn't drive the point home, then look at the rings of saturn .

Look at any planet, how did the planets become so round?

Why does a star refract a perfect five points in a lens refraction?

I could go on and on and on, and demonstrate, clearly, unequivocally, incontrovertible, that 100% randomity can, indeed, result in orderly chaos without the aid of intelligence. If that is true, then why not the entire universe, itself, which is why I stated:

Given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable.

If God is anything at all, it is the abstract concept of infinity. Infinity exists in mathematics. Mathematics exists in the abstract. Therefore, God exists in the abstract. Now that syllogism works. Infinity gives rise to existence. Why? because it's possible. Given infinity, all that is possible is inevitable. This destroys the logic that goes 'an astronomical number of things have to be in place for earth and it's complexities of life to exist'. Why? Because, compared to infinity, all numbers are infinitesimal. Given infinity, there is no such thing as an astronomical number. It only seems large compared to our smallness.

You don't like it because it seems to strip away the specialness of the universe. However, that is a human sentiment. The universe is not special nor is it not not special, it just is.

Well, I disagree, in the strongest manner possible.

The concept of an 'intelligent designer' is not logical at all. The mind only constructs it because it's not comfortable with randomity. But, it's a half baked solution, because if we assert that the universe has an intelligent designer, then it begets the question: who intelligently designed the intelligent designer? That is why it's a half baked solution, and the solution only begets another question, and so we are back to square one, which is that we don't know. Why even go to 'we don't know' in such a convoluted way? why not just go there directly and say 'we just don't know' because that is where we are going arrive at, anyway.

Now, I choose the term' randomity' rather than 'accidental'. Accidental is a human evaluation, a sentiment. Randomity is the state of the universe. They might appear to be same, but not necessarily, so I avoid the word 'chance', besides, it's a trigger word for IDers, noting that I have a good reason not to use it, because the truth is likely beyond 'chance' or 'ID', it's probably some paradigm beyond our comprehension. I mean, it goes back to my contention that, 'the universe is so infinitely vast, and the human mind is so infinitesimally small compared to it. What are the odds mankind can get it right about the creation of the universe?" In short, it's a fool's errand to even try.

The whys and wherefores of the universe are unknowable, so it is a fool's errand to even presume what it is, or isn't. Maybe the concept of a spiritual basis to life renders 'accidental' moot, and it's beyond our grasp? Here's the thing, the mind cannot comprehend infinity.

Infinity is God, if God is anything at all, and Infinity is a mathematical abstraction. God is an abstraction. God exists, as infinity exists, solely in the abstract, noting that the abstract does not exist in the physical universe, but it does, indeed, exist. Take the number 'one' (or any math equation). It does not exist in the physical universe, it exists solely in the abstract, yet it does exist ---- in the abstract. That is the domain of infinity, the domain of 'God'. But the mind cannot comprehend infinity, the mind can only comprehend the finite. But it is infinity that gives rise to the universe.

Why?

Because it's possible.

God is infinity plus possibility results in inevitablity.

Now, maybe I'm wrong, but that's how my mind works, anyway, I do not presume to be so arrogant to have the answer to the universe.

Like you, I struggle wit it, but I tried to come up with somehting that is better than the Christian model, which makes zero sense, and came up with the above, which, to my very small mind, makes some sense, as difficult as it is to wrap one's head around it.

Toss it around, see if it doesn't grow on you

I offer the above.

 

Let's get something clear: 'intelligent design' is a euphemism by creation theorists to support their argument for a supreme being, the traditional concept of 'God'. Moreover, your statement is not supported by logic or evidence. I have a philosophical concept of the essence of life, that it has a spiritual basis, but I do not allow myself to conflict with science, because natural law is what it is, and to deny it is ignorance. I can, therefore, go as far as saying there is a spiritual basis to life, that the essence of life has a spiritual source, but that source is not an intelligent designer, it's a randomity driven force, like energy. In this way, I can be 'religious' in a sense, without conflicting with science. But, I don't uphold that view merely to not conflict with science, for it is, to me, logical, plus the notion that I, as a human soul residing in a body, can sense it, I can sense the human soul, which I believe is eternal, and exists, and if that is true, which I believe it is, (because I've had out-of-body-experiences) then all of life is endowed with some degree of soul, hence my belief that life has a spiritual essence as it's source, and that the universe is a manifestation of it in material form. No 'intelligent designer', at least, not the kind of designer of human imagination. Whatever it is, it is something beyond it, beyond space and time. I believe it's just creativity, itself.

No, I never write 'they came from God'. I would ever say such a thing. That phraseology implies a supreme being, of which so such thing exists.

Since you got it wrong, then any conclusion arising therefrom is also wrong.

Posturing is not a merity worthy point of any kind. Posturing (and it's variants, such as patronizing) do not improve an argument, and, as such, are non arguments.

Since you got it wrong the outset, then any conclusion arising therefrom is also wrong.

No, because Since you got it wrong the outset, (your usage of the term 'God' appears to imply an entity, a being, which I have rejected in my philosophy, as explained in the OP) then any conclusion arising therefrom is also wrong. However, we can certainly debate these points, my reasoning for posting it in the first place.

then you should abstain from using the term' God' as a singular point, an entity.

See? Your phraseology suggests 'identity' or 'being' because it identities, beings, etc., are the only things that can be 'held accountable'.

You said above that I needn't explain that the universe driving force, and God, are teh same, since that is what you believe, but if that is true, then how is it you go on using the term as if they are not the same? You are not making sense.

You and I might agree on the principle that a spiritual force and God are the same, but your use of the term 'God' betrays you in the since that if you understood this concept as I do, such phraseology would not arise from you.

God is not something that has 'traits' ir can be held 'accountable'. God is infinity, and infinity exists solely in the abstract, and that neither exist in space and time, which is why I stated that life has a spiritual basis, which means that that spiritual basis does not exist in space and time. By virtue of understanding it this why, one will not frame any description in the sense of 'having traits, be held accountable' or 'identity'.

Since there is no supreme entity, no intelligent designer, no supreme being, no God in the sense you are implying it, your points all of which arise therefrom are moot

Now, the only reason I make that assertion is that I see no evidence, nor path of reasoning, to support it.

Your last clause assumes the final explanation, if the others are not true, then 'something else created it' which assumes a beginning. Segments of life have beginnings, but not life itself, there is nothing to indicate that there is a beginning. That life has a beginning doesn't even make sense. No, I realize that the notion of no beginning and no end is hard to fathom, but that it has a beginning and an end, is just as hard to fathom, because if that were true, then life is a blip (all X billions years of it) on the radar of infinity, and that makes no sense.

Life is infinite, no beginning, no end, and it is infinity, which is God. Given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable. For me, that is the only explanation which remotely makes sense. That is why infinity is God. Infinity cannot be comprehended by the mind, and that makes sense, that God is not comprehensible. It doesn't exist in the material universe, it exists solely in the abstract. God exists solely in the abstract. See, if you understood this in the light that I understand it, you would not frame it in light of 'having traits, being held accountable' etc. Even 'self creating' is problematic because it imagines a dog chasing it's tail. The truth is probably something like 'it's creativity' that is God. God is not a creator, it is creativity, itself.

Then you do not know what the term 'simplistic' means. No one is evading anything. FYI, the ultimate truth, the why and wherefore of existence, is, indeed, a mystery, and, in my view, to assert otherwise is the zenith of arrogance.

Any attempt by the human mind to solve the riddle of the 'big why' for life, will result in a simplistic concept, it's unavoidable.

Why? Because the universe is infinitely vast, and the human is infinitesimally small compared to it. The point is, the odds are that it's a reasonable conclusion.

It does, because life cannot be reduced to a syllogism. It is arrogant to think that it can be. If that is true, and it is, then by virtue of the fact you attempt to solve the mystery of life in a syllogism, means that it's not true.

Even if I took it a step further to actually look at the substance of your syllogism, it's still not true.

You think life is an either / or proposition, but such a notion, is, as, so beautifully expressed by Bertrand Russell, arising from the poverty of man's imagination.

Your premise rises or falls on the notion that the ultimate truth of the universe, the whys and wherefores of existence, can be logically deduced.

Many have tried for thousands of years, and no one, to date, has solved that particular riddle.

Therefore, to conclude, 'life is a mystery and let's just leave it at' is the most honest proposition of them all, one based on empirical observation of man, one which Socrates, himself, adhered to (in his own way, he, according to Plato, said "There is only one thing that I do know, and that is that I know absolutely nothing" (nor does anyone else, for that matter, regarding the ultimate riddle of the why of existence).

So, if you are going to tell me Socrates engaged in sophistry, well, I think not.

Life's intricacies and segments can be solved, but not the overall question of life, itself. And, again, I make that proclamation based on empirical observation.

That is the one item nature, in all her majesty, is going to keep to herself.

No. I don't. see below.

Life's intricacies and segments, big or small, can be solved, discovered, known, manipulated, etc., but not the overall question of life, itself. No indication in history has been put forth that that one is solvable. It is on the mystery of life, itself, attempts to solve it is a fool's errand.

If, for thousands of years, no one has solved the riddle of life, it is reasonable to conclude it's unknowable and a fool's errand to even try.

But, anything lesser than the ultimate why of existence, such things can be known, solved, captured, understood, manipulated, etc.

This is why I put forth my philosophy, explanation what I think can be known, deduced, but, at the same time, recognizing the limits of what can be known. That is why you are wrong, above.

I base my beliefs on both experience, empirical observations and personal sensibilities.

 

This is an addendum to my previous point.

You tried to explain life in a syllogism, and I asserted that it cannot be done, as life it too vast, dynamic, complex, to be so reduced.

I then offered a syllogism, myself.

But I did it, NOT to explain the 'why' of existence, only the 'how'.

This syllogism is possible because, though it doesn't explain the why of existence, we can use a syllogism to explain the 'how' of existence, which was where I wrote:

Given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable.

It doesn't explain the 'why' of existence, ( because to do that you'd have to explain the why of infinity, which is impossible ) but it does convey how life comes from infinity.

Now, when I say infinity, I'm not presuming infinity exists, or not, in the physical universe (we just don't know that), I presume it only in the mathematical sense, as an abstract concept.


Now, more detail on that in the previous post.

 

Ah, so many mistakes, so little time. I mean "origin," the way that you use its synonym, "source." Here is a little reminder:

In just those 3 brief paragraghs of your OP, you refer to what I hope you will forgive my terming, "God," (merely for the sake of expediency, in this discussion) as the "source," 8 times. Surely you understand the meaning of the word. Yet you are somehow confused, by my referring to the Divine's role, or function, as the "origin," of the universe, & so its laws?

You describe your spiritual "source," of the universe, as "divine," in 5 of your preceding quote's 8 references to it. And now you fault my use of the word?

You seem to be having a lot of trouble with language.

The word (or at least the concept, in older tongues) of "divine," BTW, pre-dated Christianity, so it is not clear what you are trying to say; from our experience, so far, however, I am guessing that you are going to redefine that well-established word, which you chose to use, to convey your meaning, with your own, uniquely personal definition?

It is incredible to me that you do not understand this fact (as we are discussing the "source" for the ordering of forces in the universe) but the reason that equilibriums can be achieved, "by a natural randomity-- not a real word, btw-- of forces," is precisely because of that quality of the forces which I am saying is incredibly fortuitous, if it is not, as seems more likely to me, an indication of intentional design. I don't know if it is more hilarious, or tragic, that you are trying to discount the wonder in nature's ability to organize an entire environment, to function as an individual organism, by stating that physics-- our science of physical forces-- has found this to happen randomly, among the forces which just so happen to invest our world.

Think about it, a little bit, before you try to reply.

OMG! You apparently, despite your fondness for the term, do not understand that "syllogism," is not necessarily a put- down. Like many words, it can be used to mean multiple, different things. And just because a proposition can be reduced to two, logical possibilities, does not make it a "logical fallacy;" that is another concept of which your understanding is clearly lacking. Syllogism, as I have a already informed you, includes deductive reasoning. Hence, this "simplistic notion," is employed by our science, which you honor, in the following post:

So where do you stand on logic and reasoning? Are they simplistic, as you treat their methods, whenever I use them in my arguments, or is the strength of your faith "derived to be harmonious with science?"-- a rather awkward & somewhat ambiguous description, by the way. It seems to merely mean that you are committed to a belief in science.

But what does that mean, coming from our Mr. DaSilva? Let his next quote be an indication of his commitment to the scientific method:

Now I am not knocking mystics, as an entire class; I am only pointing out how you are all over the place, with contradictory statements, in seeming disregard of the meaning of the words you have used in prior statements, or that you will use again:

So we humans cannot possibly understand the universe, and yet you are going to nevertheless defer to the ideas of science, though the odds are prohibitively against their actually getting it right, on the big questions; the only exception to your philosophical resolve, not to conflict with science, is when you have a personal sentiment which is confirmed by some mystic, who you to take to have deeper insight than your own.

I am not trying to berate you. I am trying to show you what it is like for someone who is trying to have a conversation with you, a debate, discussion, whatever-- when your remarks are so inconsistent with one another. Would that you would be able to find some order, amongst the chaos of your conflicting ideas.

That is known as "understatement." The point was that, there is nothing within the nature of randomness, which helps blend disorderly things, so as to fall in line. So when they do create an order, there are reasons that it occurs. But it must ultimately boil down to the way these particular forces (and substances) interact, which is also a function of the environment, in which they exist. So when the random comes together as miraculously as in this world, "what are the odds," to borrow one of your phrases, that it all happened by Chance? But if not, the only other option is that some design played a part. This is not "simplistic," it is a self-evident fact. But instead of addressing my argument, you play your wildcard word, "mystery," as if that is a reasonable third option, apart from complete random occurrence, and a less than random situation. You obviously just don't want to commit to either of those two, comprehensive, and mutually- exclusive, options.

No, this is just another term which you misunderstand. My logical statement that something either is, or is not, completely random, in no way qualifies as a reduction of the proposition to an absurdity. There is nothing intrinsically absurd about either option, which is why people, including scientists (and probably mystics, too), have debated the two sides of this question, before now. The absurdity, exists only in the ways you have been trying to disqualify the question as anything debatable.

 

We also don't know what caused the Big Bang. Your assertion is more fraught with assumptions than mine is. My assertion is that IF the big bang and consciousness are a simple byproduct of natural physical/chemical intereactions then, given enough time time, it will all happen again.

 

I'm not making an assumption. I am stating what the best scientific evidence says. It doesn't matter what caused the Big Bang. How the universe will continue from this point is time is the issue. And the best evidence to date says it will continue forever and entropy will continue to increase until there is nothing but a dark void expanding infinitely where nothing can exist.

 

Nobody was questioning Newtonian Physics, either, until Einstein came along with his THEORY of relativity. Someday, someone else might come up with something even better. Strange thing is that for 95% of things, Newtonian Physics is just fine. But not everything. GPS, as one big example, would not work without the use of relativistic math. It also explained why Newtonian physics were wrong when it came to predicting the orbit of Mercury. I don't pretend to know the details, though I'm sure there's an Internet article out there somewhere that does, but that is why they were looking for something to fix/enhance the Newtonian math in the first place.

But it's still "just a Theory". It's the highest praise science gives, and is somewhat proven until something different/better comes along. Relativity may still be with us in 500 years, or it could be replaced/enhanced half a dozen times by then.

 

It isn't strange or an accident that Newtonian Physics works for most problems. Relativity can be reduced to Newtonian physics by taking approximations of the equations where the velocity is very small. For example, consider the Relativistic equation for kinetic energy. It is easily shown to reduce to the classical equation, as shown here. We start with the relativistic energy equation. Then we take what is called a binomial expansion of that equation where the velocity (U) is very small with respect to the speed of light (C). This is purely a mathematical relationship. Once we combine terms and simplify, we find we arrive at the classical equation.

We never prove anything in physics. We falsify things. If a mathematical model predicts the correct solution we find in the real world, then it may gain the status of a theory; not because it is proven but because no one can falsify the predictions the model makes. Neither Relativity or Quantum Mechanics have ever been wrong within their domains. Relativity is for very large scale and QM for the very small scale, Of course everything goes to hell once we approach the center of a black hole. And that is one of the challenges for a grand unified theory or a Theory of Everything.

 

This must be true for any new theory. It must be shown to be consistent with everything we already know to be true. We know Newtonian Physics works for most problems. So by definition, Relativity MUST somehow reduce to Newtonian Physics in order to be accurate. Likewise, prediction from Quantum Mechanics must produce the same solutions that we get from classical physics, where large numbers of particles are involved. So while Quantum Mechanics might uniquely predict the behavior of a single atom in a baseball, it also must tell us accurately how the entire baseball acts when hit by a bat, just as Newtonian Mechanics does.

 

Yes, let's get it clear, between us, because you are, at the juncture I am now reading, profoundly lost, if you are calling me a "Creation theorist," and believe that I am using some legerdemain, to try to promote the image of the Christian God. As this is not our first Religion & Philosophy rodeo, together, you should be aware that I am not a Christian, but a "pagan," a Pantheist, to be exact. Therefore, your talking about Creationists and the Christian God, is only so much utter nonsense, with which you begin your reply.

IOW, it is irrelevant what hidden motives some others have, if they do not apply to my own intention, which is merely to share my own, honest opinion. Just because Christians use the term, "intelligent design," as a code for something specific, does NOT-- or at least should not-- mean that no one else may be allowed to speak of the concept of directed Creation and evolution, without taking on all that Christian baggage. Modern Christians, by the way, were not the first to espouse this idea. Psychologist superstar-- and a bit of the Mystic, himself-- C.G. Jung, came up with the philosophy that God is all-powerful, but NOT all-knowing; and that, in typical Pantheistic fashion, God had been using Creation-- since Its consciousness inhabits (or can be present) in all things-- through all history, for His own search, for a suitable vessel, for Its expression, in the physical world.

Your seeming inability, then, to merely hear what a person is saying, much less offer an intelligent reply to it, whenever it brushes against any of numerous ideas, which you are incapable of thinking about in any manner, other than the wholely stereotyped one, to which you have become accustomed, is very disappointing.

So, once more, for the record, when I say that it seems more reasonable, to my mind, that things have not come to this point, due to nothing other than random chance, but rather, that there has been some intercession of Will, of which we are not aware-- that is all that I am saying. It seems as straightforward a statement as possible, so the real "Mystery," is that any intelligent person would have such difficulty understanding it.

As I have also told you, I have drifted into a more Agnostic form of Pantheism, in recent years. As a self-claimed Pantheist, yourself, you should be able to interpret that remark to understand that it means that I have LESS CONFIDENCE in any ideas I might speculate, about the Divine. IOW, I am further than most, from being wed to specifics about my spiritual conceptions. I had always understood, from the time I made my pagan conversion, if not before, that I have no way to know if any of my spiritual hypotheses are correct and so, as is the case for all of us, my thoughts almost must turn out to be wrong. I therefore allow myself to entertain more than one prospective paradigm for BEING, at a time, without worrying about potential conflicts, between them. That is to say, I AM NOT A FUNDAMENTALIST, OR EVEN A DOGMATIC ZEALOT, ABOUT ANY OF MY CONCEPTS, AT ANY GIVEN TIME. I can entertain more than one possible spiritual foundation, at once. Also-- reminder-- no true Pantheist, would worship an "individual," as their deity. So, your repeated assertions that this might be my intention, is both frustrating, and the height of foolishness.

When I refer to the "Divine," it could be an omnipresent, osmotic Spirit, the Brain of Creation's Body, or some Dynamic that binds all the pieces of the universe together, as within the microscopic union of a biofilm's many separate organisms, into a community that acts as a single organism. I could go on. There could be a hierarchy of forces, or multiple Gods, even primary ones. Does that assuage the anxieties, leading to your completely unfounded presumptions?

If so, I will end this post by challenging your quote's other assertion, that my "statement is not supported by logic or evidence." For starters: to what statement of mine, do you refer? I fail to see anything in what you quoted which was not logical (naturally, no one has real "evidence" to present, when it comes to God or the nature of our reality):

DEFinning said: ↑
You misunderstood me. At first I had said that either the laws of Nature had developed randomly, or that there had been some intelligence, some design, behind them. You replied that because there is order in the universe, does not mean that the forces of the universe are intelligences. This was your first misunderstanding. I explained that the assembling of this particular ensemble of forces, that interact as they do, is the intelligent design.

 

I should add that this explains Newtonian Physics. He was discovering or deriving "zeroth" or "first order" approximations of more complex equations. So the equations aren't wrong but they are incomplete. They only show the results where low velocities [compared to the speed of light] and weak gravitational fields are in play, because that was all that humans had ever encountered before. Newton had no way to reference a speed like 186,000 miles per second. And most importantly, he had no way to imagine the speed of light is constant for all observers.

The Michelson–Morley experiment was still over a century away.

 

I didn't call you a 'creation theorist', We do need to achieve a meeting of mind on what these term Intelligent Design means.

Fine, good to know,

Well, you used a term, 'intelligent design' which commonly is used to denote a Supreme Being.

Let's take a look at this sentence you wrote. (and so I don't have to use the quote tags, I'm going to italicize the quote, and your italics I'm going to transfer to bold, to maintain your emphasized words)

So, for one who is taking this tack-- i.e., you-- instead of deciding whether or not God, the Force at the core of our universe, had determined the interrelating of its own nature, which would become, or be a cue to, the interacting forces, bringing order to universal "chaos," in the physical realm, such a person would, in that case, only be faced with that same question, when it came to (in the situation you seemed to depict), the Creator of God.

My word, that is really a convoluted sentence, and one must struggle to understand it. My idea of pantheistic thought would never use the term 'God' is phraseology that suggests 'entity', yet you do it in spades. For example, this:

....God, the force at the core of our universe.

That isn't technically anti-pantheistic, but one could infer 'identity' to the way you framed God in the clause, which suggests 'supreme being' which IS anti-pantheistic ( in my opinion, noting that I'm not a card carrying pantheist, perhaps I'm not fully cognizant on just what a pantheist is, or isn't, but it doesn't jive with my thinking on the subject, just know that much). I would never frame the thought that way. Now, before you jump the gun, perhaps you are not meaning the way I am inferring it, fine, nevertheless, I would have written it thus:

...God, that spiritual essence which permeates everything in the universe, ...

Do you see the difference? It is my view my statement is more pantheistic than yours, or at least my understanding of pantheism, though I could be wrong on that point. Nevertheless, it is how I view 'God' whether it's true pantheism or not.

Now, moving on, let's see what else you wrote:

....you-- instead of deciding whether or not God, the Force at the core of our universe, had determined the interrelating of its own nature,


Reducing your sentence to it's essential parts: you are saying I had determined the interrelating of it's own nature,.......

I don't know what you mean by 'interrelating of it's own nature'. You'll have to clarify. But I must assert that even if I knew what you meant by
'interrelating', I wouldn't have characterized God in terms of 'it's own nature', because that, again, suggests 'identity' or 'entity' or 'supreme being', *(whether you meant it that way or not) so that being true, renders the term 'interrelating' no matter what you mean by it, a moot point, insofar as a concept I can relate to, or reach a meeting of mind on.

If the rest or your sentence(s) depend on understanding that clause, or accepting it's terms, then I won't be able to understand, let alone agree, to the rest of what you wrote. But, in case I'm jumping to conclusions, let's take a look at what else you wrote:

...which would become, or be a cue to, the interacting forces, bringing order to universal "chaos," in the physical realm, such a person would, in that case, only be faced with that same question, when it came to (in the situation you seemed to depict), the Creator of God.

Not I, because, as I explained, the rest of your sentence is predicated on what you wrote just before it, and since, given how I would frame any concept of 'God', differently than you have, the rest is moot, as well not to mention the idea of being intellectually forced into arbitrary binary choices, which, in my view, are unknowable.

Let us continue: You wrote:


That is, once more, there are but two real choices: either God was self-creating (in which instance It would also have created its own nature-- it wouldn't just be that way), or something else created It.

This choice you offer is predicated on the assumption that the choice is binary, and there is, in my view, no way anyone, not myself, you, or anyone else, can possibly know whether it's that simple, or not. We cannot know if 'god is self creating' or 'something else created it'. Both of these are unknownable, they are your suppositions, not ot mention whether or not other possibilities exist, or not.

1. I never said you cannot clarify what you mean by it, and my establishing the conventional meaning does not imply it, whatsoever.

2. Sure, you can use the term differently than the convention, but when you do, you should make sure we have a meeting of mind on your usage of a conventional term. I'm not sure you did, or if you did, your language is abstruse.

I wouldn't characterize Jung that way.

Came up with the philosophy? Your phraseology is horrific. You make it sound like Jung pulled it out of his butt. Puhleez!

Jung is Jung, I am me. We have some commonality but not totality. This thread isn't about Jung. But, since we are dropping names, think Spinoza, Bruno, but if these philosophers can be likened to a sunflower, I'm but a dandelion. I live on a much simpler narrower plane.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I must say, the feeling is mutual.

If you are suggesting that 'God' has 'will', then you can't be a panthesit. As I understand Pantheism, God has not a person, identity, being, or anything that possesses free will or 'intelligence'.

I found this definition of Pantheism, and it concurs with my understanding of it, we can call it 'scientific pantheism' or a belief in God which does not conflict with science

Pantheists believe that God is in some way identified with nature. All that is is God and God is all that is. The word God (or god), if pantheists use it, doesn't have the same meaning as when Christians use the word. Christians believe God is a personal Being who is transcendent. He is above and separate from His creation, He is totally different from anything in our finite, physical world, yet He interacts with His creation. Pantheism however rejects that God has personhood. The pantheist deity is not a being and is not transcendent. The cosmos, to a pantheist, is the outworking or a manifestation of that non-personal, non-being, which they worship by means of naturalism (the belief that nature and nature's purposeless laws and processes are all that exist). Regarding origins, most pantheists hold that the universe is eternal, having no beginning and no end.

I concur with this definition 100%, but I add one item to the mix, that the essence of God, as described above, has a spiritual basis, a spiritual basis which is to say tha this nonentity God, though having no will, no personhood, it permeates all of existence.

However, unlike the Pantheist doctrine, above, I, personally would never refer to God in gender-esque terms, he or she, etc., and I would try to even avoid 'it'. This is why I assert that I'm not a card carrying Pantheist, but only that Pantheism is the closest to my philosophy compared to others. I say this based on the simple definitions I've read.

Well, now that we are diving deeper into Pantheism, I"ve qualified myself on that count, above. Good to year about your 'less confidence'.

When you say you are an Agnostic Pantheist, I would interpret that is Pantheist, 'but I could be wrong'. That's fine. That's good, actually. Humility is always a good thing.

Glad to hear it. I eschew any and all 'know-it-all-isms' and it's variations. I never proclaim my beliefs as 'fact' or 'knowledge', but only my best guess about nature.

Again, good to know you cleared that point up. You do have a long winded way of writing, though. You might want to work on that.

Sure, why not? It's fun to speculate. But, I prefer not to speculate beyond my experience and sensibilities.

Your question has an assumed premise. I would never 'presume' if by that you mean that it's near 'factual' status, If I presume anything, know that its always in the light one's best guess, nothing more.

That 'intelligent design' in the conventional religious sense is not supported by logic or evidence, or at least, I've yet to read anything compelling that supports it. Again, perhaps you are using some other definition of ID, you'll have to clarify. But, if you mean 'will' resulting from some kind of personhood, or 'beingness', then, no, I've yet to read an argument that supports it as compelling. The counter arguments are more compelling.

Like I said, ID connotes 'will' or 'being', so if your ID is something else, you'll have to clarify what you mean by it, because your line, the assembling of this particular ensemble of forces, this is not 'intelligence' and if it's not intelligence, there is nothing designing anything, that is to say, if you are a Pantheist, and you appear to be less than certain about it.

 

god not being intelligent: Hmm. First we have yet to quantify and quality the existence of this entity.

Second......If this entity exists.......on some other dimension/ / alternate reality etc etc........ how would one measure it's IQ?? Or would such measurements even apply in this nether world of ( invisible to us ).....entities. Applying human qualities to some unseen entity that man created so he had something to worship and for"inspiration" does not make sense.......as the factors / perimeters in these other realms might be vastly unique and different from what we understand

Mind you these questions might be answered at some point in time/space /infinite possibilities etc. Science will eventually explain the unknown. Human intelligence and quest for knowledge cannot be underestimated. ( but then one cannot underestimate mans capacity for self destruction)


It is rather thought provoking t engage in these abstractions.

 

Intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

The definition of God: Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal

Omniscient means a god can't acquire knowledge because a god would already possess all knowledge.
If omnipotent a god doesn't need knowledge or skills. It can just will something to be.

Intelligence is a term reserved for mere mortals like you people.

 

Do you know how this definition of God came from?? Or did it come down through the generations o f various religious groups. Seems the definition of god has changed though the ages............until god acquired mystical, mythical and magical qualities.......along with punitive ones for the peons that don't follow his authoritarian rule. & dictum. And why is god a "he" ......If we re talking the spirit world.........then is gender even relevant??

 

Well, if I may...it makes no sense that anybody believes millions of fraudulent votes happened in ballots they haven't seen and assumed something was "amiss" because Trump gaslighted them. That's absurd but many people believe it.

And, forgive me if I missed it. Are we talking about God/god as a Creator of the Universe, Father of "all" universe creator or are we talking about a a bunch of bs wrapped up in pretty songs, gold and silver designed to control larger society? I totally agree if it's the former. I disagree if it's not. It's doing exactly what it was designed to do - blind compliance for fear of something nobody has or can prove or disprove. They are raking in billions - like Trump - why stop the con?

 

What I find fascinating is how may will "believe" abstract entities that have not been proven sacrificially...(yet))..and yet refuse t believe the reality around them .....or facts that have been proven It i probably just easier to believe what cannot be seen or proven as t can be argued until "hell " freezes over without sensible outcome.

It is actually fascinating how for some groups (Catholic)........the fear of some imaginary "hell" can be used to control peoples behavior ad make hem conform Just imagine the psychological impact of this kind of indoctrination. Particularly since this "hell" is post death. Can one imagine the terror this creates dying experience.When it should be a tranquil, state of mind in acceptance of this finality.

an aside: but there is a good book called The God delusion.......Well done.......... and of course the author has been threatened with violence because he dared to pose a different perspective form the traditional Christian one. Indoctrination can devolve into fanaticism very easily. Some religions are ripe for that.