"God" is rational

[(Q)]

Then neither does the big bang, string theory, dark matter, etc

Some of those have evidence, but it's circumstancial and hardly concrete, not to mention it's untestable and therefore, unprovable.

Regardless, that suggests, again, so many scientific "theories" are also on par with other things that have zero evidence.

Right now, I'm acting on logic, figuring out the possibilities. Next, we need evidence.

There is no logic in making false statements to support your argument, that is intellectual dishonesty, regardless of whether or not you are knowingly making false statements or you're simply ignorant of the facts.

Whatever scientific theories you wish to turn up your nose at, are certainly well beyond your level of education and understanding, hence you can't make any comments on them whatsoever, other than, "I don't know."

Continuing to make such false statements would constitute trolling.

 

[Norsefire]

What false statements?

 

[Sarkus]

And as of now, we have absolutely no idea what the simplest logical conclusion is.

But rationality is based on current information... and introducing an additional "unknown" - such as an intelligent creator - is inherently less "simple" than alternatives (e.g. eternal universe etc).

It's about attributes of causation/change; only intelligence and nature are those attributes. What else causes change? Everything would either fall under intelligence or nature. Those are the broadest "forces".

Yes; and the causation would either be caused to be, naturally, or created. Do you see any other possibilities?

You say it must be either nature or intelligence... yet you plump for the more complex "intelligence" rather than "nature" - and still claim to be talking rationally? Odd.

However, this is a very real possibility since the origins of the universe remain unknown, and we know it either began naturally or was created

Do we know that? Have you discounted all other possibilities... e.g. the eternal universe - going through bang / crunch cycles? How have you discounted that?

Why would I accept it fully without evidence? Right now, I'm acting on logic, figuring out the possibilities. Next, we need evidence.

Logic gives you some possibilities, along with an infinite other. Rationality will simplify this list to those with either some evidence or at least with the less complexity.

 

[Norsefire]

But rationality is based on current information... and introducing an additional "unknown" - such as an intelligent creator - is inherently less "simple" than alternatives (e.g. eternal universe etc).

The universe having begun naturally is still irrational, though, because we can still question the origins of this nature, coming out of no where?

You say it must be either nature or intelligence... yet you plump for the more complex "intelligence" rather than "nature" - and still claim to be talking rationally? Odd.

I don't think either is more complex, necessarily, because they can both lead to each other.

Do we know that? Have you discounted all other possibilities... e.g. the eternal universe - going through bang / crunch cycles? How have you discounted that?

The cycles would be classified under "natural", since they are caused without intent (unless they are caused with intent).

The only real possibilities I see are with intent or without intent; there is the possibility that the universe has always existed, but that just doesn't make any sense.

Logic gives you some possibilities, along with an infinite other. Rationality will simplify this list to those with either some evidence or at least with the less complexity.

And we have simplified the list: it either was created or began naturally.

 

[Oli]

And we have simplified the list: it either was created or began naturally.

Or some other way since the rules didn't apply!
:spank:

 

[Norsefire]

Or some other way since the rules didn't apply!

I think the quality of intent would apply regardless of rules. Besides, even if, then how the hell can we ever figure out how the universe began? It makes everything equally ridiculous.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

What false statements?

*************
M*W: Norse, do you understand the difference between prophets and gods and the opposite of them, that they don't exist?

 

[spidergoat]

I think the quality of intent would apply regardless of rules. Besides, even if, then how the hell can we ever figure out how the universe began? It makes everything equally ridiculous.

Why can't we figure out how the universe began? We now know a great deal about the early universe, back to less then one second after the big bang.

 

[DeepThought]

Why can't we figure out how the universe began? We now know a great deal about the early universe, back to less then one second after the big bang.

Theists and atheists continue to look for their own 'Gods' in the gaps in our knowledge.

The gaps grow smaller but never vanish entirely.

 

[Sarkus]

The universe having begun naturally is still irrational, though, because we can still question the origins of this nature, coming out of no where?

If you are saying the Universe began either naturally or by a creator then the difference between the two, as you seem to see it, is the attribute of "intelligence".
This is an additional claim above a natural cause and is thus less rational than a Creator. Unless you can show that causation of the Universe MUST have involved intelligence?

I don't think either is more complex, necessarily, because they can both lead to each other.

I hope I have shown above how the claim of "intelligence" in the cause of the universe is an unnecessary additional element - and thus makes the overall claim more complex?

The only real possibilities I see are with intent or without intent; there is the possibility that the universe has always existed, but that just doesn't make any sense.

Sense to who? To you? To discount it on the basis that it doesn't make sense to you is a logical fallacy - argument from incredulity.

 

[(Q)]

The universe having begun naturally is still irrational, though, because we can still question the origins of this nature, coming out of no where?

Rather than continuing to bleat this nonsense, why not spend the time to find out how the universe could have begun naturally? That way, you're armed with some knowledge, rather than just beliefs.

 

[Oli]

I think the quality of intent would apply regardless of rules.

You would think?
If the rules are different (all of them as far as we can tell) then you can't make assumptions on what or what does not apply.

Besides, even if, then how the hell can we ever figure out how the universe began? It makes everything equally ridiculous.

Yup. Fun isn't it?

 

[Norsefire]

Why can't we figure out how the universe began? We now know a great deal about the early universe, back to less then one second after the big bang.

We can. I'm not saying we can't. But where does the assumption that it formed naturally come from? Who the hell knows? As I explained, it was either created or formed naturally, since that is the case when you observe forces of change. And if you're going to take that assumption and disregard everything else blindly, it's foolish.

If you are saying the Universe began either naturally or by a creator then the difference between the two, as you seem to see it, is the attribute of "intelligence".
This is an additional claim above a natural cause and is thus less rational than a Creator. Unless you can show that causation of the Universe MUST have involved intelligence?

Nobody can show anything. They are equally rational because they both have a basis.

I hope I have shown above how the claim of "intelligence" in the cause of the universe is an unnecessary additional element - and thus makes the overall claim more complex?

Is intelligence more complex than nature?

Rather than continuing to bleat this nonsense, why not spend the time to find out how the universe could have begun naturally? That way, you're armed with some knowledge, rather than just beliefs.

Sure we can spend time figuring out how it COULD HAVE begun naturally....and how it could have been created. You're acting like you KNOW it began naturally, which is foolish and baseless.

You would think?
If the rules are different (all of them as far as we can tell) then you can't make assumptions on what or what does not apply.


Yup. Fun isn't it?

Then you're saying attempting to find the origin of the universe is pointless?

 

[Oli]

Then you're saying attempting to find the origin of the universe is pointless?

Effectively.
Any attempt to explain (or currently even explore) what happened "before" the big bang is futile.
Science, as it stands, doesn't work under those conditions.
It's not a question for science, as has been admitted.

 

[Norsefire]

Effectively.
Any attempt to explain (or currently even explore) what happened "before" the big bang is futile.
Science, as it stands, doesn't work under those conditions.
It's not a question for science, as has been admitted.

Then a natural explanation, if you could call it that, is equally as illogical and ridiculous as a creator explanation.

 

[Oli]

Then a natural explanation, if you could call it that, is equally as illogical and ridiculous as a creator explanation.

Nearly right: ANY explanation is futile.
I've said that I don't know how many times...

 

[(Q)]

Sure we can spend time figuring out how it COULD HAVE begun naturally....and how it could have been created. You're acting like you KNOW it began naturally, which is foolish and baseless.

What is foolish is when someone doesn't take the time to learn something and then goes on internet forums demonstrating their foolishness.

Or, when people explain things in great detail to those who keep saying the same foolish things over and over again.

So, why won't you take the time to learn something? And, why don't you listen when someone explains something to you?