We agree to disagree then.
The gods concept and false arguments against it
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
I hope you do realize, though, why it is necessary to give consideration to the intelligence hypothesis.
I give it what I think it deserves - occasional fun speculation, nothing more.
Why only "occasional fun speculation?"
I've already explained the reasoning behind it; any scientific mind wouldn't dismiss viable ideas without a good reason. We have good reason to suppose an intelligence behind the origins of our universe purely because we know intelligence is influential, and because we know our universe, if it had an origin, was either created or was an "accident". Therefore we must entertain the three possibilities equally:
1) intelligent causation
2) An "accident"
3) It always was
I deem your logic to be faulty here, and full of emotional bias.
I never said I dismiss the idea. I just give it a very low likelyhood based on what we currently know about the universe. Your reasoning that "We have good reason to suppose an intelligence behind the origins of our universe purely because we know intelligence is influential" to be spurious at best.
Just because I know that intelligence can influence the environment dosen't mean that I consider the amazing structural organization of many crystalline structures to be even remotely caused by intelligence.
Yes it does. Presents appear under everyone’s tree on Christmas morning. To a child it is logical and as you would say, not a ridiculous concept. It is only your bias that won’t allow you to see the relevant similarities.
No in this particular example the child has asked his family and friends and they were not responsible. It is a very logical and likely conclusion. Even if the child had never had Santa described to them they would, after being told that his parent’s didn’t put them there, imagine an intelligent and generous entity which doesn’t look anything like Santa. Just as someone who had never heard of god might imagine an intelligent creator who doesn’t have a white beard. No different.
Firstly, I edited my post after re-reading because I knew you would say that. Secondly if this happens it is because you start threads referring to god, which is generally accepted to mean the god of the abrahamic religions. I’m pretty sure I read that you were a Xtian again. Thirdly, it doesn’t change my point so don’t get too hung up on it.
I didn’t say it was ridiculous and I didn’t dismiss anything. Don’t be so eager to repeat the same arguments over again that you don’t read other people’s posts.
It is possible as are teapots and Santa. That is the point. Don’t think that saying it’s a real possibility or saying is needs serious consideration somehow makes up for the complete lack of evidence. It doesn’t and it doesn't make the teapot analogy invalid.
Last edited:
Who is speaking of gods and goddesses with sisters? I certainly am not. I'm speaking of intelligence
And the fact is, we have no clue, so we need to try to reason out the possibilities
Yet, that it wasn't caused by intelligence has a higher likelihood? I don't think we can really determine likeliness at this time, in terms of what is more likely than the other. They all make sense and all have a mechanic, so how can we rule out one over the other?
However, if you travelled to a far off planet and found an extremely complex architectural structure, could you not suppose intelligence? And would it be unreasonable to do so?
I have hit a wall here. I'm out of logic and reason.
Address my last point.
After examining my own reasoning, I cannot fathom how it is at all sensible to dismiss totally viable ideas when you have not a clue over the actual nature of things and when the gap already exists.
With these "gods", there is already something which requires explanation, and intelligence always is an explanation and shouldn't be ruled out.
The reason you do not need to give consideration to santa is because there is nothing requiring answering, nor is there any logical inference you can make about it. We have no reason to suggest the existence of a giant celestial teapot and we have no observation or eventuality which requires explanation where a giant celestial teapot could come into play
As with the origin of the universe, we do have an event that requires explanation, and intelligence is a viable explanation. As such, why should it be dismissed or not be given serious consideration, when indeed it is a serious proposal that fits?
No. Read my last post where I said I don't completely dismiss the idea.
Which "gods"?
1) IMO Intelligence behind the creation of the universe is not a serious or viable consideration. It borders on the absurd, IMO. You cannot sway me on this point except with direct evidence that precludes a natural explanation.
2) Fits what? You have presupposed the one condition that might even remotely qualify the idea that there is intelligence involved, namely that the univers was "created". I see no reason to think the universe had an ultimate origin. As I've said, it seems illogical to suppose such a thing, and I've thoroughly explained why.
That's because such a "theory" usually makes no testable predictions, or if it does (like some claims in the bible) they fail miserably and rediculously.
I'm not really sure why the origin of the universe can have only two causitive agents.
Couldn't an accident of nature accidentally done it intelligently, or maybe an accidental act of an intelligent agent?
Or maybe a proto-Chris Farley, gibbering about in the Void, pseudopodia flailing, dreamt this all into being?
Why are any of these less likely? Because Norsefire feels like they aren't?
Couldn't an accident of nature accidentally done it intelligently, or maybe an accidental act of an intelligent agent?
Or maybe a proto-Chris Farley, gibbering about in the Void, pseudopodia flailing, dreamt this all into being?
Why are any of these less likely? Because Norsefire feels like they aren't?
**************
M*W: That's probably as close to any god as you're going to get!
Anything claimed to be evidence of gods can easily be claimed as evidence of something else.
A textbook strawman argument.
Norsefire said:
Not any more. Intelligence can create a certain kind of complexity, but it isn't the only way complexity can occur. We now know that the complexity found in life can come about with no intelligent intervention at all. In fact, things that are designed have very different qualities than things that acheive their complexity through evolution. We can study the qualities of complex things and determine if they were designed or simply designoid. Our eyes, for instance, would not have been designed that way if it were the product of intelligence. The blood vessals are in front of the light sensing cells. Other creatures have different solutions. This solution must have come about due to being adapted from a previous incarnation. We find similar examples throughout the animal and plant kingdoms. Furthermore, the only examples of intelligence making complex things occurs at the end of a long process of evolution. If all time were compressed to a year, intelligence-guided complexity only happened at the last second of the last day, and even then it cannot compare to the smallest life form. Intelligence is no longer a reasonable explanation for the complexity of life.
Aannuunnaakkii
Registered Member
Infinity
Who's talking about the origin of Man here? I'm talking about the origin of the universe. I can agree with you now that evolution seems to have been how we got to be at the stage we are, but there's always the question of whether or not it was guided. Evolution is a process, not a cause, right?
We're speaking of the origin of the universe, and intelligence isn't a ridiculous "beyond consideration" explanation. That doesn't mean it's correct but it can't be dismissed.