Personal god versus universal intelligence (Rising Sun)
Offline Personal god versus universal intelligenceI don't understand why there is so much disagreement when it comes to the belief in a universal intelligence. When it comes down to the belief that there is a personal god answering our prayers, I can see why this is utterly contradictory to scientific observation. But does this exclude the possibility of a universal force that is the underlying cause of all that exists? I certainly did not create myself, nor did anyone create his or her personal attributes. I am me not because I am the author of me. I beleive we are an expression of a creative force that lies beyond our immediate understanding, but just because we cannot see this force does not mean that this force does not exist? And just because my definition of god is different than your definition, does not mean that my definition is necessarily untrue. Don't you agree?
Please continue here. :3
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
I really feel the need to start a new thread. This has gotten convoluted into something I could not have imagined. I feel as if I am in Alice in Wonderland to the extent that what people are saying have nothing to do with me, or the conversation I started. I am trying to be respectful to the owner of this forum as well as the moderators. I am asking them if I could start the same thread but without the junk. I can't expect anyone to dig through the posts that are exploitive of my intent, as the author of this thread. I hope someone gives me an answer as to what to do next.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Thanks for your reply Thomathy. I was actually moved here by the moderator so I don't know if I am allowed to move again on the same topic. That might be considered redundant. Moreover, I don't know if it would make any difference where I post. I may be wrong since I don't know how each category differs insofar as the rules of debate are concerned.
Well, kill 'em with kindness ...it's not self-explanatory? Anyhow, sure, you may get slack for repetition. Do what you like. Change the question slightly? I'll even make a suggestion:
(Can someone please tell me where this sudden bout of patience came from?)
A little prettier and certainly more easily understood than your original mash.
Well, now that you've asked the question, I might as well answer it here.
Short: No. No to all three questions.
Long: There is simply no precedent for such an intelligence. Before you go and claim that it's not intelligent, you, originally, had used the words 'expression of creative force'. That's intelligence. What begot such intelligence? How does such an intelligence both exist in the universe and yet be responsible not only for its existence, but ours as well? If it is undetectable or, 'as yet not understood,' then how is there any justification to say anything about it existing or to offer a description of it? -If it is as yet not understood or is undetectable, then how can you claim to know anything about it?
All of the questions I just posed are exactly those which confound people who believe in a personal god. Simply, your force is not any less likely to exist than a personal god. And as a definition it fails utterly. In fact, based on your description and your having given it attributes, you have placed it into the realm of those things which are meaningless. Your definition, if what you pose could be called that, is so incredibly lacking and faces so many logical inconsistencies that, with as much certainty as we can have about anything, it can be said to not exist and to be impossible. Of course, that's giving it more credit than it deserves, for such a vacuous 'definition' could not possibly be adequate enough for me to say what it is we would be denying of existence or calling impossible. That is wherefrom I arrived at the conclusion that it is meaningless.
Simply, you must test a much more rigorous definition that is coherent and references something at least possibly tangeable in this universe. If you manage that, you'll be the only person ever to have. Of course, at that point, what you're defining couldn't possibly be anything called 'god' and I hope you appreciate why that is.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I don't have to prove there is no such intelligence unless there is some evidence that there is one.
There are literally an infinite number of things which people can say could exist - until they present some actual argument based on some aspects of reality, ie, evidence, it would be ridiculous, impossible actually, to have to treat them all as serious possibilities. That is my core belief here, that we gain knowledge about reality by studying reality, not just thinking about it.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
They are real, and I have no idea if they are good or not o.O
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
To respond to another argument, if there is indeed a 'force' which is the 'underlying cause of all that exists', it is the quantum scale fluctuation of energy that seems to pervade all of space-time, which is logically all we need to 'explain' the emergence of the 'singularity' which started the Big Bang which grew into our Universe. Not saying this is a remotely precise description of what must have happened, just pointing out that it is a broad logical outline of the sort of thing that could have happened, and it is based on current scientific observations.
The randomness inherent in such a 'force' is essential for the emergence of genuinely new arrangements of the fundamental 'stuff' of matter/energy, which allowed the emergence of an ever more complex universe, including intelligence. All our observations of actual conscious beings are intimately associated with complex structured matter ( 'brains' ), point to the idea that some form of complex structure, not necessarily organic nerve tissue, would seem to be essential, both from evidence and logic, to support the complex process which is 'mind'.
Memory is also essential to mind, and in itself requires some persistent structure whose elements can exist in different states, not just a 'force'. An 'intelligent force' makes no sense in the light of what we know about intelligence.
More reasonable would be the idea of an underlying source of raw potential action and variation, and some basic consistent orderly pattern of interaction between the fundamental elements of existence ( matter/energy? ), which we describe by the Laws of Physics, seem to me to be the minimal requirements for the emergence of more complex entities.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
What about the people that don't believe in an intelligence? That is the default position anyone would have.
Why say others have to "believe in no intelligence"? I have not seen anyone make that claim.
If you make an extraordinary claim, that there is some force out there we don't know of, then the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not anyone else. I will continue to not hold a belief in anything extraordinary utnil someone making claims ponies up some evidence.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
I'm not a moderator, I was simply helping move you and Luminon out of the forum where theists are not allowed to post. (Each forum section has it's own rules)
If you want to start another thread it is fine. :3
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
When you use the word force it sounds like it is an entity that I am referring to. I am not. I am not giving this 'force' any attributes. For lack of a better word I resorted to this word, which might have made it appear that I am a science fiction buff.
You're right in that my definition of god was rather vague. I do appreciate your rephrasing what I wanted to say. It was spot on. But where are the inconsistencies that you speak of? There is nothing we can point to and say it is god, which I agree with. The belief in something beyond the obvious comes from the fact that this world is too intricate to not be guided by an intelligence, even if that intelligence cannot be seen. Even if the world evolved from some point of origin, to conclude that all the pieces came together by chance, and that we stand alone, is more far-fetched than me telling you that we don't stand alone.
Did you decide to stay with this thread?
Again, maybe we are speaking the same language but don't realize it. You keep saying we need evidence. There is indirect evidence all around us. This is a quote from a book I am reading.
"We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a discovery was made that proved this, and we also assumed or believed that there was a design to this universe by the fact that the solar system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun, moon, earth, planets and stars just fall into perfect order, or is there some internal urgency pushing everything in a particular direction?"
Once again, I think I am confusing people with the word force. An underlying intelligence is consistent with the possibility of the laws of physics. I am not making any statement of a belief in a god outside of natural law or that there is not a basic pattern of interaction between the fundamental elements of existence. I still don't see where an intelligence compelling mankind to evolve in a certain direction excludes the scientific method. They are not mutually exclusive.
If complex things have to be preceded by intelligence then how could intelligence exist in the first place? Isn't intelligence a complex thing?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
...since when is our solar system in any way perfect?
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
We are an insignificant planet traveling in an elliptical orbit around an insignificant star in a corner of a galaxy. Our planet is not perfect and our solar system is not perfect, even while conceptions of perfection are somewhat arbitrary. How is everything in "perfect order?"
Well, did you use the scientific method to reach this conclusion?....or do you cling to it because you like it?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I think this was addressed to me. I'm not sure. I don't mind staying with this thread if people don't go off onto tangents or use name calling. I'm just wondering why they don't have the page numbers on the top of the thread so we don't have to keep scrolling down the first page to get to page 2, 3, 4, etc. It just makes it difficult, but I don't mean to complain as I know it's hard to run a website.
I don't remember saying that others have to 'believe in no intelligence'. I was trying to define what I meant by a higher intelligence, that is all. I am a skeptic at heart, consequently I am also highly suspicious of anyone who makes extraordinary claims without proof.
I don't remember saying that others have to 'believe in no intelligence'. I was trying to define what I meant by a higher intelligence, that is all. I am a skeptic at heart, consequently I am also highly suspicious of anyone who makes extraordinary claims without proof.
It is perfect in that it has allowed life to exist. In other words, it is hard to believe that everything fell into such perfect order that it allowed life on earth to exist, and all this happened by accident.
You are saying we are an insignificant planet traveling in an elliptical orbit around an insignificant star in a corner of a galaxy. Did you use the scientific method to reach this conclusion? To say anything is insignificant is a subjective statement. You are right about the word perfection being arbitrary. This is another rhetorical question to ponder.
"Do you really think it was an accident that the solar system came into existence; an accident that the sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don't roast or freeze; an accident that the earth revolves just at the right speed to fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains developed just that way?"
Um, really?
There's that word "perfect" again.
You are falling into an illusion. Specifically, the illusion that the particular outcome of a series of events was pre-ordained and therefore intentional and unlikely. Think of your own existence. You had a mother and a father. The particular sperm that made you was a unique genetic sequence, and the particular egg that it joined with was a unique genetic sequence. Just considering sperm, your father probably inseminated your mother with millions of sperm during the act of your conception. You are literally 1 in a million. Then consider all of the other times(and sperm) that your parents may have had sex, and how you(well, someone like you) may have been conceived in a very different way. Consider all of the possible mates your parents could have chosen. Then, with just these extremely simplified scenarios, replicate it for your 4 grandparents, your 8 great-grandparents, etc. The chances that you were conceived are undeniably very slim. But the fact remains that this was just one of a great many possible outcomes, each with an extremely small probability. However, the probability that ONE of the possible outcomes would come about was 100%. You just happened to be the lucky one.
The same thing is true for the universe. If the solar system hadn't formed how it did...well, then it wouldn't have formed like it did. Nothing more. If life had not been possible in that scenario, then we wouldn't be here typing about it. If intelligence would only be found in the ocean in that scenario, the inhabitants would likely be hard pressed to imagine a world in which intelligence started on land.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
It depends on the baggage you are attaching to the word "accident." If you mean that it was random, then of course not. The formation of the universe is based on the "behavior" of matter and energy. The fact that things like inertia and gravity exist as properties of the universe means that things like our solar system will develop. The possibilities for life as we know it on Earth are limited, and so life would either have existed in some different state, or not at all, if the Earth had formed differently.
But when it comes to bodies, then it is a totally different story. Life developed in this environment. Things that didn't work in this environment wouldn't survive to reproduce. Given a source of energy(the Sun), a system of replication(naturally occuring amino acids) and variation in the "survivability" of the replicator, evolution becomes virtually inevitable. And that process will only produce things adapted to their environment, as anything else "dies" and is cannabalized by successful replicators. There is no particular reason to think that homo sapients were inevitable, but whatever did exist would fit into its environment.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Is "perfect" our galaxy colliding with another in the future?
How about "perfect" being our moon growing in distance away from our planet with every passing moment?
...Somehow I don't think "perfect" fits anywhere into the realm of reality here. Yes, the planet supports life. But it isn't in any way "perfect" for it. And it doesn't mean the planet always has, or always will be able to support life.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Yes.
Astronomers have determined that we reside in a section closer to the outside of the Milky Way galaxy. Our sun is brighter than most of the stars in our galaxy, but dimmer than many; it is neither at the very top nor bottom of the bell curve. Fundamentally, it is no different than any other star of a similar size. It is not special. We are traveling around the sun in an elliptical orbit. We are the third planet out of nine, unless you discard Pluto.
The only thing that is potentially significant about our planet is that we have living organisms. However, the considering the amount of worlds in the universe, it wouldn't be surprising if there were millions of planets containing life. So, if we take the position that life can potentially arise under the right conditions, then, clearly, the environment did not just happen to be here. Rather, we are here because of the environment. In the same way, and this analogy has been used way too many times, a puddle would be incorrect in believing that the sidewalk had a crack perfectly suited for its shape. Instead, it is the versatile puddle that assumed the shape of the hole. You roll a million dice, then proclaim, ‘Look, isn’t it a miracle that I got this particular combination.’ Why? Why is it a miracle? Why is it not a miracle that Jupiter has a certain size, shape, make-up, position, etc. The entire argument touts the improbability of the outcome after the dice have already been cast by begging the question that the outcome that has already occurred is special.
If we define accident as lacking intent, then it is an accident. If we define it as having some chance of happening and some chance of not happening, then it is probably not an accident. I say probably because while scientific knowledge suggests that everything is exactly determined, we still don’t understand certain stochastic processes and Quantum Mechanics well enough yet to know if these things are actually random or simply pseudo-random.
Same as above.
Also, this is not as improbable as you probably think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN3e3F56odA
Same as above.
Edit: Formatting.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
It is true that my individuality, that combination of sperm and egg, is unique, as is yours, but the underlying process of genetic material being passed down from generation to generation, is not. The fact that I am conscious right now does not mean that if I was not born, the 'I' that makes me me would not be here. My consciousness might be here but with another set of genetic combinations. I know this is getting deep, but it does feed into what we are discussing. I agree that it is one in a million (or whatever the possibility is when one sperm meets one egg) to create a combination of characteristics that gives each of us us our particular individuality, but this does not negate the fact that the entire process of how we come into existence, is nothing less than miraculous, not in a supernatural sense, but in a natural sense that indicates an underlying intelligence. The same thing holds for the other scenario you offered. In a broader sense, the raw material that creates life in any form is amazing, but especially human life which allows us to be conscious of ourselves and the world around us.
I am not at all saying that evolution does not exist at least within each species (I don't know if I am sold on cross-over from one species to another, i.e. Darwanism but that's another topic). This is part of the miracle; the fact that living organisms can reproduce and adapt. Nevertheless, it still boggles my mind that life, with all of the 'apparent' imperfections, exists at all. I do not take the position that the world centers around humans, and everything was created for them although our intelligence as a species is, in itself, something I have a hard time attributing to chance. The odds of creating homo sapiens, in particular, considering that our brains are so complex, would be very slim which begs the question: If the odds of us being here, conscious of our existence, is one in a trillion (or whatever the odds are), then how were we created and is there an intelligence underlying all of life?
Are you assuming that your consciousness is somehow an independent entity from your physical makeup? Or are you simply saying that if you weren't here, something like you would be here? If the former, you need to provide some proof of this independent entity. If the latter, you'll have to provide proof that you or something like you was inevitable.
Again, it is not an indication of an underlying intelligence, any more than a lucky series of coin flips is an indication of some guiding intelligence. There were X possible outcomes for some form of life at this location in the universe, a very small chance that any one would happen but a 100% chance that something would happen. We just happen to exist because this series of events was conducive to life like us. If it wasn't, then we'd be different or wouldn't exist.
I might be amazed at winning a lottery, but it does not indicate that a disembodied intelligence willed it. My emotional reaction to a series of fortuitous events has no bearing on the issue.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
I would suggest you start by sitting down with "The Origin of Species" and reading it cover to cover. Then pick up something like Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True." If you still doubt evolution at that point, I'd be happy to hear you thoughts on the matter, but not until you have demonstrated an understanding of the reasons they put forth.
You need 3 things for evolution: an energy source to power it, some form of replicator and some variation in survivability. You can write a simple program which demonstrates this, or find them online. I've written several myself in order to demonstrate the idea to others. It's not a "miracle" but rather a virtually inevitable result of having amino acids which form chemically.
If our intelligence, as flawed and limited as it is, is such a miracle, why do you assume that some underlying intelligence, far beyond ours in every way, just popped into being at some point?
And, a pet peeve, you meant "raise the question." Begging the question is a fallacy, and not the same thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Let's go over this again.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
You are right about all of your possible predictions. Only time will tell whether the predictions of life dying out will come to fruition. In the meantime, I choose to believe that no meteor will kill us before weapons of mass destruction do the job.
I don't know because I don't know what makes up this intelligence. The intelligence we are speaking of, by definition, must be more intelligent than the things it produces, so this intelligence must be out of the realm of our mental framework. I do understand your question and it is appreciated because we all have the same quandary.
That "explanation" would belie the reasoning behind seeking an explanation in the first place. If an explanation is necessary because of apparent complexity, it wouldn't make sense to place the most complex thing you could possibly imagine at the beginning of the sequence of events because that would be a concession that complexity, even in the most extreme case imaginable doesn't require an explanation.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Homo sapiens are inevitable, in my opinion, just like all forms of life because we exist. To say we didn't have to be here is sort of like letting the tail wag the dog. There is no way to prove that it could have been any other way. I am not distinguishing humans from other forms of life, as if we are the center of the universe, but I am saying that it is rather remarkable that we, as homo sapiens, are able to recognize our individuality because we are the only species that is capable of recognizing our own consciousness, as I mentioned earlier. It's truly incredible to me. You are entitled to your own feelings on the subject. I am not invested inconvincing you of anything. We all must come to our own conclusions especially when there are no hard facts.
Rising Sun: It is true that my individuality, that combination of sperm and egg, is unique, as is yours, but the underlying process of genetic material being passed down from generation to generation, is not. The fact that I am conscious right now does not mean that if I was not born, the 'I' that makes me me would not be here. My consciousness might be here but with another set of genetic combinations.
Thatonedude: Are you assuming that your consciousness is somehow an independent entity from your physical makeup? Or are you simply saying that if you weren't here, something like you would be here? If the former, you need to provide some proof of this independent entity. If the latter, you'll have to provide proof that you or something like you was inevitable.
Rising Sun: No, I am not assuming that my consciousness is somehow an independent entity from my physical make-up. And I'm not saying that if I wasn't here, something like me would be here. What I am saying is that consciousness is not an individual thing even though we can only see this world through our own eyes. The word 'I' indicates that it is my consciousness, but if I were never born with these particular characteristics as a result of my parents getting together does not mean that 'I' would not eventually be born with a different set of inherited characteristics. I know this is hard to grasp.
Rising Sun: I know this is getting deep, but it does feed into what we are discussing. I agree that it is one in a million (or whatever the possibility is when one sperm meets one egg) to create a combination of characteristics that gives each of us us our particular individuality, but this does not negate the fact that the entire process of how we come into existence, is nothing less than miraculous, not in a supernatural sense, but in a natural sense that indicates an underlying intelligence.
Thatonedude: Again, it is not an indication of an underlying intelligence, any more than a lucky series of coin flips is an indication of some guiding intelligence. There were X possible outcomes for some form of life at this location in the universe, a very small chance that any one would happen but a 100% chance that something would happen. We just happen to exist because this series of events was conducive to life like us. If it wasn't, then we'd be different or wouldn't exist.
Rising Sun: As far as your other question is concerned, I do not agree with your conclusions. Yes, it could have been just a crap shoot that we are all here, but it would have been beyond lucky. Crap shoots indicate that the chances of this happening are almost nill. Why would you believe in something that is almost nill, considering you are a rational person? Just wondering, not attacking.
Thatonedude: I might be amazed at winning a lottery, but it does not indicate that a disembodied intelligence willed it. My emotional reaction to a series of fortuitous events has no bearing on the issue.
Rising Sun: Who said that a disembodied intelligence willed it? That is not my definition of an underlying intelligence. Do you see how we could end this conversation without truly understanding our respective positions? This is not about a separate will outside of us that is in charge. This is about the laws of our own nature that compell us to move in accordance with that nature. It does not prove that there is an intelligence governing our universe, it just gives evidence that there could be.
You are also correct that your emotional response to a series of events has no bearing on the truth of those events, but it certainly would feel good if those events turned out to be true, wouldn't it? That doesn't mean that hope alone would be enough for me to hold onto a belief if there was definite scientific evidence to disprove it.
Rising Sun: So far life has existed and none of the dire predictions since time immemorial have come true. We are still here to debate whether life on earth will continue to exist as we know it. Based on the approximate age of the earth (according to evolutionists), and the fact that nothing catastrophic has happened yet to destroy the earth, affords me the security that nothing catastrophic will take place in the near or distant future to wipe out mankind.
Rising Sun: Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
Either stop talking to yourself, or learn to use the quote function correctly
Oh, by the way, welcome to the forum.
I agree.
I agree with this too. I don't think the possibility of an intelligent creator, a deist God, is ever excluded, but what evidence is there supporting it?
I don't think so. What intent would we be fulfilling?
Sure.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Okay, so you're not saying that your consciousness would float around until it had another fetus to attach itself to? Rather, you're saying that if you could have been born as another person, then that person would be you. But, then, why do you say, "eventually be born?" When you write it that way, it sounds like your consciousness didn't get its chance to poof into existence, so it waited until another sperm went into another egg.
I do not believe in a soul, a spirit or any such supernatural woo-woo. To me, self-awareness is a product of the brain and inseparable from the brain. What we call consciousness is our abstraction of this phenomenon.
For more information on this topic, you can try these essays. (they're really hard)
http://www.rationalresponders.com/problems_quotout_bodyquot_model_consciousness
http://www.rationalresponders.com/problems_notion_nonmaterial_aspect_conscious_process
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I don't know how intelligence could exist in the first place. That is the million dollar question. How did the world form and is there an intelligence that guides our existence? Laws of nature come from somewhere. Even evolution is controlled by laws that help all species to adapt. My only question is whether the manifestation of these laws in the way that the world operates doesn't have an underlying intelligence that allows for a certain amount of predictability.
Some things just can't be proven such as what caused the Big Bang? Or was there a first cause? And if there was, what came before it? We can try to answer these questions in scientific terms, but science cannot adequately answer all questions that have perplexed mankind since the beginning of time. These are questions that might never be answered to our satisfaction. We can continue to gather evidence to support our theories about the origin of the universe, but we can't know positively whether there is an intelligence behind it all, or not, therefore we must come to our own conclusions based on what makes sense to us. To think of humans as being insignificant because of the belief that we are just chemical reactions in an evolutionary chain, doesn't sit right with me. Maybe I am just looking for a reason to feel that there is a purpose to my existence, and I may be delusional. But until there is proof that there is no intelligence that is governing our universe even if it's through natural law (once again, I am not alluding to an intelligence as a separate entity called god), I will continue to hold onto the belief that we are here for a reason.
Hi Rising Sun, might I inquire what book you get your "prefect" solar system/galaxy/whatever ideas from?
I did not mean to give the impression that I was endowing this intelligence with a will of its own separate and apart from what exists. What I meant by the force being creative is that life and the laws that govern it seem to have an internal urgency that pushes it in the direction of evolution, creation, and progression. This is what I mean by a creative force.
It was assumed the Earth was flat until proven wrong.
It was assumed the Sun went around the Earth until proven wrong.
It was assumed Heat was a substance ( 'phlogiston' ) until proven wrong.
What do you mean by saying the Solar System "moves in such mathematical harmony" ?
None of the orbits of the planets are neatly circular, they are not in exactly the same plane, the orbits are not neatly spaced precisely according to some math formula, etc, etc.
It closely, but not perfectly, follows Newton's inverse square law of gravitational attraction, that's about as close as it gets. All you are really saying is that simple systems behave in simple ways, that can be described by simple mathematical equations.
The "earth, planets and stars" are not by any stretch in "perfect order". That is nonsense. There is a mix of chaos and order. We perceive a certain amount of pattern, stars tending to collect in large groups to form galaxies, which are all different in size and shape. The distribution of starts and planets has a large component of randomness and/or chaos.
There is no indication of things moving in some particular direction, apart from toward the ultimate 'heat death'.
We have local increases in order, such as the evolution of complex life forms, driven by the flow of energy from the Sun. Those life forms have evolved into a vast range of forms, from viruses to humans, which interact and in many cases 'prey' on each other, in a dis-organized fight for survival. As Darwin observed when noting all the different minor and major variations between individual lineages of life-forms, even among birds and reptiles living in basically the same environment on separate islands in the Galapagos Islands, why would any single creative agent (he assumed 'God', being a Christian at the time) bother to produce all these endless minor variations in basically the same 'kind' of life?
The indications are that once life had evolved to fill all the various environments, some forms became simpler than their cousins and ancestors, such as those occupying caves, which lost capacity of sight. The only direction is toward currently un-occupied but viable modes of existence, such as swimming around in pools inside caves. Just as gas expands to fill available space.
What direction are you thinking of?
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Here, this might help.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/general_conversation_introductions_and_humor/7011
Then perhaps the semantics is confusing us.
"Design," to me, implies that effect in question was the result of some intelligent force, caused with intent.
Express itself?
Kind of. Well, it's a naturalistic fallacy to say that life has an 'intent.' It is not the 'purpose' of life to reproduce. It is simply the natural order of things. Besides, if life was, as you say, "stagnant," then life wouldn't exist. However, it does strive to survive, which is why, ditto, it does exist.
Pretty much, although I wish you wouldn't anthropomorphize so much.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Life forms which, by chance variation, happen to have a stronger impulse to reproduce themselves, will tend to reproduce more, other things being equal, and so will come to be the most common forms. It's that simple, doesn't require any mystical "purpose", just a chemical or neurological bias toward more reproduction.
Most definitely does not require any directed purpose. The drive to survive evolves from any replicating system - those not disposed to survive don't survive, and so disappear.
The 'purpose' emerges from the basic logic of things which can reproduce themselves. The capacity to replicate, which came along with the first molecules like RNA and DNA, came before any drive to survive and fill the available environments capable of supporting life, rather than driving it.
Intelligence is a consequence of what order exists in the universe of matter and energy , amongst the surrounding chaos, not a cause of it. It is impossible that intelligence requires an even higher intelligence to 'create' it, otherwise could no 'first' intelligence could form. There is no logical reasoning that intelligence requires even more intelligence to 'create' it.
It is far more likely that basic non-intelligent matter/energy existed or came into existence before intelligence, because it is far simpler.
We can already create computers which can do some things that once only humans could do, and do them much faster, more accurately, and involving much more complex calculations than any human or group of humans could ever do.
Purpose and intent are emergent things, attributes of conscious beings, not ultimate driving forces.
The more stuff there is in the Universe, the more possibilities there are for some parts of it to happen to be suitable for complex structures to form, until on at least one of the hundreds of millions of planets at all varying distances from their sun, one happens to be ok for replicating molecules to form and start the process of Darwinian evolution. Even if the chances are one hundred billion to one against, that means it is still could be a better than even chance of life starting somewhere.
Under such conditions it could well have been more amazing if life didn't come about spontaneously. We don't have a good handle on the probabilities, but we are making new discoveries all the time that make life more likely, such as discoveries of distant planets that suggest that 'earth-like' planets are much likely to be much more common than once thought, and that the chemical building-blocks of life could be formed by relatively simple processes on the early Earth.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology