Religion and concept

[Norsefire]

I'm saying that as an atheist I agree that there is a possibility of a god since I simply cannot prove my stance. But because I have seen nothing concrete that proves God exists or that I may have to rely on the supernatural of which again there is nothing concrete, I am forced to conclude God does not exist despite the one chance in infinity that He might..

I don't agree. The probability of our universe having been created is, at the time, entirely unknowable and, at best, perhaps an even chance to a natural beginning. Unless you can present me with logic to suggest otherwise.

So do you think all the options are either illogical or absurd?

Yes, as a Human being, I am the victim of rational thinking. I find the idea of something always having existed absurd, but our understanding of the cosmos and of reality is very limited, so I can't say it's absurd. That is what theists and atheists do; I choose the wiser stance, which is agnosticism.

If intelligent life formed in a universe we created then we would probably be gods to them.

Exactly.

The specifics were most likely added over time. In the beginning they were doing the same thing that you are doing. We don’t know how something happened so a higher entity might be responsible. Lightning would have appeared to be fairly special stuff that was out of the realm of nature. It seemed perfectly reasonable and logical to them that there is a god making it and thunder because how else would it be created? There were noises and flashes in the clouds and there was no evidence either way.. So it seemed logical and reasonable.

It actually was logical and reasonable, but what wasn't logical or reasonable is their believing that their supposition was true. It's understandable that they might correlate the complexity of the universe with intelligence. As ideas, I don't find their suppositions irrational. They have, of course, been disproven though.

It may make sense to you but there is absolutely no reason to suppose a higher force at this stage. Doing so in the past has always been wrong. Stop making the same mistake.

To suppose? Yes, there is plenty reason: because it's a supposition. That's the point of a supposition, looking at what you have, and coming up with logical reasons. Creation isn't illogical.

The only problem is proving it, which we can't do for either creation or natural beginning. I've already explained that you can come to those two conclusions logically, but you can't PROVE either of them, and the problem is, they're both rational.

 

[shaman_]

Yes, as a Human being, I am the victim of rational thinking. I find the idea of something always having existed absurd, but our understanding of the cosmos and of reality is very limited, so I can't say it's absurd.

Well you just did. But anyway you should make note of your own point. Our understanding is limited so we should be wary ruling out ideas just because they are hard for us to comprehend. Have you read about quantum fluctuations yet? If such things exist they could explain matter and energy appearing out of nothing (by my laymen understanding).

That is what theists and atheists do; I choose the wiser stance, which is agnosticism.

No that is not what atheists do but nevermind.

Exactly.

It actually was logical and reasonable, but what wasn't logical or reasonable is their believing that their supposition was true. It's understandable that they might correlate the complexity of the universe with intelligence. As ideas, I don't find their suppositions irrational. They have, of course, been disproven though.

When we hit something we don’t understand just proposing that a god might have done it is making the same mistake that so many have before. Now we have another gap so yes you can say it hasn’t been proven either way and yes it may seem logical to you. But how many times does the ‘god’ answer have to be wrong before you will see a problem with it? He keeps retreating into the gaps and still gets used as a placeholder until a real answer comes along. Now once again I know you are not talking about scripture but the entity that can create the universe is indistinguishable from a god. It is the same thing.

God has always been the answer until we find the real one. Why would this time be any different? Just because it seems logical or possible is not answer to my question.

 

[(Q)]

I don't agree. The probability of our universe having been created is, at the time, entirely unknowable and, at best, perhaps an even chance to a natural beginning. Unless you can present me with logic to suggest otherwise.

So, regardless that you've had explained many time in many similar threads you've started, you're still pursuing the same fallacious argument you started with?

You can't demand logic when you offer none yourself.

:crazy:

 

[Norsefire]

Well you just did. But anyway you should make note of your own point. Our understanding is limited so we should be wary ruling out ideas just because they are hard for us to comprehend. Have you read about quantum fluctuations yet? If such things exist they could explain matter and energy appearing out of nothing (by my laymen understanding).

Alas, I have not. I'll have to check it out.

However, if, as you say, our understanding is limited, why running off rejecting the possibility of creation?

When we hit something we don’t understand just proposing that a god might have done it is making the same mistake that so many have before. Now we have another gap so yes you can say it hasn’t been proven either way and yes it may seem logical to you. But how many times does the ‘god’ answer have to be wrong before you will see a problem with it? He keeps retreating into the gaps and still gets used as a placeholder until a real answer comes along. Now once again I know you are not talking about scripture but the entity that can create the universe is indistinguishable from a god. It is the same thing.
God has always been the answer until we find the real one. Why would this time be any different? Just because it seems logical or possible is not answer to my question.

There is one fundamental difference between "God" being used in the past and the way I am using it. God, in the past, is used as the direct force of causation in the universe. As far as we know, the universe operates naturally, on its own, without causation. Therefore, this eliminates the possibility of any such "God" that is claimed to be doing this.

However, when we are speaking about the origin of the universe, not only is it an unknown, but it presents the true possibilty of a creator. Now we are dealing with the origin of nature itself, and therefore, "God" is now a rational argument.

So, regardless that you've had explained many time in many similar threads you've started, you're still pursuing the same fallacious argument you started with?

You can't demand logic when you offer none yourself.

I have. It's rather simple: intelligence can create complexity. The universe is complex, therefore, it's possible the universe was created by an intelligence.

The only possibilities are that it came about "naturally" or it was created.

 

[Myles]

Alas, I have not. I'll have to check it out.

However, if, as you say, our understanding is limited, why running off rejecting the possibility of creation?


There is one fundamental difference between "God" being used in the past and the way I am using it. God, in the past, is used as the direct force of causation in the universe. As far as we know, the universe operates naturally, on its own, without causation. Therefore, this eliminates the possibility of any such "God" that is claimed to be doing this.

However, when we are speaking about the origin of the universe, not only is it an unknown, but it presents the true possibilty of a creator. Now we are dealing with the origin of nature itself, and therefore, "God" is now a rational argument.



I have. It's rather simple: intelligence can create complexity. The universe is complex, therefore, it's possible the universe was created by an intelligence.
The only possibilities are that it came about "naturally" or it was created.


Your argument is simplicistic which i not the same as simple. I shan't bother pointing out why you are wrong because you will take no notice.

 

[Norsefire]

Your argument is simplicistic which i not the same as simple. I shan't bother pointing out why you are wrong because you will take no notice.

It's simplistic but true; do you see any other alternatives? We were either created or we came about to be naturally. By "we" I mean, the universe.

 

[Myles]

It's simplistic but true; do you see any other alternatives? We were either created or we came about to be naturally. By "we" I mean, the universe.

So what ? A person is either a male or a female. What precisely does trhat explain ?

You are saying nothing but cannot see it.

Re-read what you said about complexity. I'm off

 

[Norsefire]

So what ? A person is either a male or a female. What precisely does trhat explain ?
You are saying nothing but cannot see it.
Re-read what you said about complexity. I'm off

What does that explain? That there are only two possibilities. Therefore, we should look into both.

 

[(Q)]

I have. It's rather simple: intelligence can create complexity. The universe is complex, therefore, it's possible the universe was created by an intelligence.

The only possibilities are that it came about "naturally" or it was created.

Repeating the same nonsense over and over isn't going to make it any more arguable. You simply are making personal assertions based on...?

And that is the end of that.

 

[Myles]

What does that explain? That there are only two possibilities. Therefore, we should look into both.

I was using your argument of two possibilities with the suggestion that you re-read what you said about complexity. The penny hasn't dropped, has it. Don't expect to argue with conviction if you cannot see the errors you aremaking, even when you are given a broad hint.

You say intelligence can create complexity. What does that mean ? Have you anything in mind or is it just an empty statement ?

If we accept that intelligence can create complexity, whatever that means, it does not follow that intelligence will create complexity. Furthermore, we haven't a shred of evidence that anything of the kind has happened.


We know that complexity can evolve because we have the evidence to support that view.

So, despite what you think, we are not talking about a 50/50 situation. On the one hand we have evidence of a mechanism which can produce complexity, on the other we have nothing .

If you cannot work this out for yourself, you can have no sensible arguments to offer.

 

[Norsefire]

I was using your argument of two possibilities with the suggestion that you re-read what you said about complexity. The penny hasn't dropped, has it. Don't expect to argue with conviction if you cannot see the errors you aremaking, even when you are given a broad hint.

I am making no errors; I am simply observing the possibilities and calculating their likeliness. Either way, both have a good chance and should be looked into.

You say intelligence can create complexity. What does that mean ? Have you anything in mind or is it just an empty statement ?

It means intelligence can create complexity, and therefore, it's possible we, being complex (both Humanity and our universe) were created.

If we accept that intelligence can create complexity, whatever that means, it does not follow that intelligence will create complexity. Furthermore, we haven't a shred of evidence that anything of the kind has happened.

It does not follow that it will, but it follows that it can. In our case, that is relevant enough that we look into it, or at least, not to discard it.

Evidence is the next step. First comes concept.

We know that complexity can evolve because we have the evidence to support that view.

Actually, we only know evolution can happen. We don't know how exactly we evolved; was it unguided, or guided? That's unknown.

So, despite what you think, we are not talking about a 50/50 situation. On the one hand we have evidence of a mechanism which can produce complexity, on the other we have nothing .

See above

They have a near 50/50, with a slightly favorable view of nature, but not so much that intelligence is out of the question, however, and certainly enough that it remains a real possibility.

If you cannot work this out for yourself, you can have no sensible arguments to offer.

I have already offered one; our universe was either created or came about to be naturally. Both of these concepts have not a shred of evidence, so both should be considered. And universal radiation from the big bang does not classify as evidence that we began naturally, sorry. It is only evidence that there was a big bang

 

[Myles]

Sorry, but you are talking nonsense. How have you calculated a "near 50/50" ?

Provide an example of Intelligence creating Complexity as you understand it !

The point is that we know about evolution. The alternative ypou are suggesting is a vague concept on a par with suggesting there might be a tooth fairy because it cannot be ruled out on the grounds that we have never seen one.

You are not observing possibilities and calculating probabilities. Thqat is what you think you are doing,but you are wrong.

Evolution is not guided. You would know that if you took the trouble to inform yourself. But, of course, you won't.

There is really nothing left to discuss. Bye

 

[shaman_]

Alas, I have not. I'll have to check it out.

However, if, as you say, our understanding is limited, why running off rejecting the possibility of creation? .

I’m not. However just because something is possible doesn’t mean it is likely.

There is one fundamental difference between "God" being used in the past and the way I am using it.

No it isn’t any different. It is a different unknown but you are using the ‘god’ answer just as it was used in the past. God/s were thought to be the creator of the land, then the earth, then our galaxy and now you are suggesting the universe. It is no different. It is just one more step upwards. Sure it is possible, lots of things are possible but what evidence is there to suggest that a god is involved? None. It is just another unknown and you are suggesting the great placeholder, the great non-answer that is god.

God, in the past, is used as the direct force of causation in the universe. As far as we know, the universe operates naturally, on its own, without causation. Therefore, this eliminates the possibility of any such "God" that is claimed to be doing this.

However, when we are speaking about the origin of the universe, not only is it an unknown, but it presents the true possibilty of a creator. Now we are dealing with the origin of nature itself, and therefore, "God" is now a rational argument.

Why? Simply because it is unknown? That is just the ancient god of the gaps argument again. So every time we have an unknown that makes God a real possibility. Doesn't that sound a little desperate? It's like saying "He must be in one of those gaps".

 

[Norsefire]

Sorry, but you are talking nonsense. How have you calculated a "near 50/50" ?

It's rather simple. First, observe causation. What causes change? Either intelligence or nature
Therefore, in regards to our universe, the only possibilities are that it was created or that it came about naturally
And lastly, try to find evidence to support or disprove either. As of now, no such evidence exists.

Provide an example of Intelligence creating Complexity as you understand it !

Humans create computers.

The point is that we know about evolution. The alternative ypou are suggesting is a vague concept on a par with suggesting there might be a tooth fairy because it cannot be ruled out on the grounds that we have never seen one.

Vague? It seems rather simple.

Of course, there's two sorts of ID; there's ID in regards to Humanity, but also ID in regards to the universe.

On par with the tooth fairy? Hardly. If you actually gave it thought, you'd realize that. Is M theory on par with the tooth fairy? And the big bang?

on is not guided. You would know that if you took the trouble to inform yourself. But, of course, you won't.

How are you able to tell if it is guided or unguided]/I]? Either way, it's evolution happening.

I’m not. However just because something is possible doesn’t mean it is likely.

Of course, that is perfectly true. However, as I've explained, I think ID in regards to our universe can't be determined for likeliness, either that or it's a near 50/50 with natural beginning.

n’t any different. It is a different unknown but you are using the ‘god’ answer just as it was used in the past. God/s were thought to be the creator of the land, then the earth, then our galaxy and now you are suggesting the universe. It is no different. It is just one more step upwards. Sure it is possible, lots of things are possible but what evidence is there to suggest that a god is involved? None. It is just another unknown and you are suggesting the great placeholder, the great non-answer that is god.

Again, you misunderstand. Once we disproved that God operates on Earth, we have disproven that God operates ANYWHERE in the universe, because we have PROVEN that the universe operates naturally.

The questions has changed now, from how the world works, to where nature [the universe] begin, and in this case "God" (force of creation; remember the sense that I use the word) is not an illogical or irrational concept.

imply because it is unknown? That is just the ancient god of the gaps argument again. So every time we have an unknown that makes God a real possibility. Doesn't that sound a little desperate? It's like saying "He must be in one of those gaps".

See above.

 

[Myles]

It's rather simple. First, observe causation. What causes change? Either intelligence or nature
Therefore, in regards to our universe, the only possibilities are that it was created or that it came about naturally
And lastly, try to find evidence to support or disprove either. As of now, no such evidence exists.

Humans create computers.

Vague? It seems rather simple.

Of course, there's two sorts of ID; there's ID in regards to Humanity, but also ID in regards to the universe.

On par with the tooth fairy? Hardly. If you actually gave it thought, you'd realize that. Is M theory on par with the tooth fairy? And the big bang?

How are you able to tell if it is guided or unguided]/I]? Either way, it's evolution happening.
Of course, that is perfectly true. However, as I've explained, I think ID in regards to our universe can't be determined for likeliness, either that or it's a near 50/50 with natural beginning.

Again, you misunderstand. Once we disproved that God operates on Earth, we have disproven that God operates ANYWHERE in the universe, because we have PROVEN that the universe operates naturally.

The questions has changed now, from how the world works, to where nature [the universe] begin, and in this case "God" (force of creation; remember the sense that I use the word) is not an illogical or irrational concept.




See above.

You get worse with every post you make. So you believe computers are intelligent ? I thought you had something like that in mind.

You now have two sorts of ID, Given a bit of time , you'll think of few more.

You talk of probabilities and, in so doing you add maths. to the subjects about which you appear to know nothing. It makes no sense to talk of the probability of evolution because evolution is a fact. So your 50/50 argument is ridiculous but you don't understand why. You probably never will.

You are never going to learn even when your are given an explanation as to why you are wrong. You are out of your depth and I am not a lifesaver.

I shall not respond to any further posts of yours on this topic.

 

[Norsefire]

You get worse with every post you make. So you believe computers are intelligent ? I thought you had something like that in mind.

No...computers are complex.

You talk of probabilities and, in so doing you add maths. to the subjects about which you appear to know nothing. It makes no sense to talk of the probability of evolution because evolution is a fact. So your 50/50 argument is ridiculous but you don't understand why. You probably never will.

Actually it's you that doesn't understand what I am saying. Evolution might be a fact; the question is, was OUR evolution guided or unguided?

I shall not respond to any further posts of yours on this topic.

Feel free not to; however, usually I take this to mean you will not argue further because you cannot argue further.

 

[Myles]

You got a couple of things right. I wrote intelligent when I meant complex.

The other thing you got rightis that I cannot argue further. I have written you off.

 

[Norsefire]

The other thing you got rightis that I cannot argue further. I have written you off.

No, only simply this argument has evolved. At first, I was addressing the issue of a higher power, and stating why I believe it isn't an illogical idea. However, then we got into ID and evolution. Now, again, even if we can prove that evolution occurs, there's still the question of our own evolution, was it guided or unguided? The problem is, it's impossible to know because we'd only see evidence of evolution, not any sort of guidance or lack of guidance. And guidance becomes a serious question in regards to Humans because of our great intelligence. During the age of caves, there were drawings on the walls of modern day flying saucers and space men.

 

[shaman_]

Of course, that is perfectly true. However, as I've explained, I think ID in regards to our universe can't be determined for likeliness, either that or it's a near 50/50 with natural beginning.

Which I disagree with as there are problems with the ID explanation but we won’t go into that again.

Why try to determine the likeliness? Putting probability on unknowns like this is mere speculation, doesn’t achieve much and can set you up to look silly later on. In this particular case we will be long gone of course.

Again, you misunderstand. Once we disproved that God operates on Earth, we have disproven that God operates ANYWHERE in the universe, because we have PROVEN that the universe operates naturally.

The questions has changed now, from how the world works, to where nature [the universe] begin, and in this case "God" (force of creation; remember the sense that I use the word) is not an illogical or irrational concept.

No I haven’t misunderstood. You have just hit another unknown, the creation of our universe, and you are proposing that the magic/advanced force god whatever might have done it. It is no different to the previous examples I gave regarding the god of the gaps. You are saying, “But this is different, this time I’m talking about the universe”. Sure it is a different question but the situation is the same. You have a god as the placeholder once again just as many have before.

It may be hard to conceive the universe being created on its own but not so long ago it was hard to conceive our planet forming without intervention.

 

[Norsefire]

Which I disagree with as there are problems with the ID explanation but we won’t go into that again.

Why try to determine the likeliness? Putting probability on unknowns like this is mere speculation, doesn’t achieve much and can set you up to look silly later on. In this particular case we will be long gone of course.

There aren't any problems with the ID explanation, no more than the natural explanation.

In order to emphasize possibilities; we know that the only two forces that cause change are nature, and intelligence. Therefore, that's the possibilities of our universe.

No I haven’t misunderstood. You have just hit another unknown, the creation of our universe, and you are proposing that the magic/advanced force god whatever might have done it. It is no different to the previous examples I gave regarding the god of the gaps. You are saying, “But this is different, this time I’m talking about the universe”. Sure it is a different question but the situation is the same. You have a god as the placeholder once again just as many have before.

Magic? I never used the word.

It's a question that, this time, a creator actually fits....because we're talking about creation/beginning.

It may be hard to conceive the universe being created on its own but not so long ago it was hard to conceive our planet forming without intervention.

However, that's observable and always able to be known; universes, well, not so much.