Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

[Blues Man]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

Our first allegiance is to ourselves then our families. the country is a bit further down on the list for me

There are logical reasons the sequence is God, country and family.

I don't think a belief is gods is logical.

That's because you don't have a perception of God beyond magical fairytales, bro. So of course you don't believe belief in God is logical. I wouldn't believe in God either if I had your perception of God.

Interesting,

Do I have to believe before my perception changes or do I believe after I see something that changes my perception?

I think you have to have an open mind and objectively look at all sides before arriving at objective truth on any issue.

I do have an open mind.

I just like to have some sort of empirical evidence. There have been many times I have changed my opinion when I was presented with sufficient evidence that contradicted my original stance on a subject.

The universe and everything that has transpired since it was created from nothing being hardwired to produce intelligence is the evidence.

Not really.

The absence of scientific evidence is not in itself proof of a god being the creator of the universe.

It is just as possible that we do not yet have the technology or the mental capacity to see or understand the process of the inception of the universe.

There's no absence of evidence.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God. If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept.

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

And how do you know the evidence we have regarding the inception of the universe is all the evidence there is?

And now you're bringing the spiritual into this? And we've already been over the morality and ethics argument and we do not agree so I see no need to rehash that one.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

But we don't know what happened the nanosecond before the beginning so all we know is the effect of the cause but not the cause itself.

You want to say the cause is a god. I am saying that we do not have enough information to say what caused the creation of the universe and the only thing we can see and measure are the aftereffects of the inception of the universe.

If we do not know what happened before the inflationary event we call the big bang we do not know the cause.

I am saying that the first cause cannot be matter or energy, so what is left?

We don't know.

You are assuming it was some otherworldly being.

I am not making that assumption because I have no evidence of the existence of any otherworldly beings.

Is it an assumption that the nature of intelligence is to create intelligence?

of course.

We think ourselves intelligent beings but have we created intelligence?

You like to attach characteristics to the universe because you have assigned a purpose to the universe. I don't assume the universe has a purpose.

We made smart phones. We made automation. We made PLC logic. We made AI.

I don't believe anyone would argue that we are obsessed with making smart things. Except maybe you.

Of course the universe has a purpose. It is an intelligence creating machine. You can only tell what something purpose is by its finished product. That would be intelligence for the universe. Everything that unfolded was leading to the universe becoming self aware. Despite your objection, you are a product of the universe.

Those are nothing but storage devices.

They are not intelligent in and of themselves but rather run on a set of rules and algorithms that humans have devised.

And I never said I wasn't a product of the universe.

I can be a product of a universe that has no purpose.

Right, but they simulate intelligence because man is obsessed with making smart things. Thus proving it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

You could be a product of a universe that has no purpose but that would be an astronomically incredible series of coincidences. It is much more likely that intelligence hardwired into the laws of nature for intelligence to exist than it is an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do because matter and energy follow laws of nature which in and of themselves are no things and had to exist before space and time because space and time were created according to the laws of nature.

We have not created intelligence. A smart phone isn't smart in and of itself. it can't do anything other than what we have told it to do.

And considering the size and age of the universe it is not unreasonable to think that we very well may be the results of trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events over billions of years.

I'm not going to argue with you about this. If you don't want to believe that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence, then don't.

As for random events... I already explained this to you... If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

You are saying that we created intelligence we haven't.

We have created storage devices that work very quickly and operate on a simple binary code. That is not intelligence but you are claiming it is.

So since you think everything that has ever happened has happened for some purpose tell me what is the purpose of a single collision of 2 individual dust molecules that happened 12 billion years ago.

What part of... "I'm not going to argue with you about this. If you don't want to believe that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence, then don't" did you not understand. I've made my case.

You take what I wrote out of context. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The reason two individual dust particles collided was because they were on a collision path. So they did not just randomly collide.

You don't understand that no human creation up to this point is an intelligence. but back to your assertion that the universe and therefore everything that has ever happened in the universe has a purpose.

So then is it your contention that those 2 dust molecules were put on a collision course for some reason by some intelligent force or were they merely on that collision course because of an unknown number of other events occurring over an unknown time span? If it was the latter then it was a random event.

And how does that collision have any purpose?

No. That's not what I am saying. Try again.

If the universe has a purpose then surely everything that happens in the universe must work towards that purpose.

Or since we don't know what 95% of the universe is made of or how it interacts with any of the 5% we do know are you just imposing a purpose on the universe?

It does, but not in the way you are describing.

so what is the purpose as you describe it of a collision between 2 dust molecules 12 billion years ago?

To exist and to evolve.

and who defined that purpose? The dust? and how does a dust molecule evolve?

There is no purpose to a dust collision. It just is what it is. Just like the universe it just is. it is neither perfect nor imperfect.

Humans like to see patterns where there are none.

The laws of nature define the evolution of the universe. The purpose of the dust particles is to exist and to evolve. The reason they collided was because they were on a collision course. The dust particles exist as a part of the evolution of space and time just as you exist as part of the evolution of space and time.

The pattern is complexification and it cannot be disputed. Since space and time were created from nothing matter and energy has continued to complexify and evolve.

we obviously don't know all the "laws" of nature since we only have an understanding of about 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

And entropy is one of the things we understand. The universe will not become more and more complex. In fact it's the opposite of what will happen.

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Stars will run out of hydrogen and wink out and the universe will cool and settle at a temperature a few degrees K above absolute zero.

People throw out that we don't understand dark matter so we don't know everything argument all the time. We don't need to know everything to know the things we do know. Your understanding of entropy is flawed. Entropy can be looked at several different ways. If you want to argue that entropy prevents cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the creation of consciousness you are going to lose that argument because these are all known stages of the evolution of space and time. It is entirely possible for matter and energy to complexify while the total disorder of the universe increases because usable energy was lost to the system in the creation in the process of complexification. I can use a messy room being cleaned as an example. The room starts out in a more disorderly state. It is cleaned to a more orderly state. The cost to clean the room used energy. There are no 100% efficient processes. In every exchange some energy will be lost to the system. So that even when the room became more orderly by putting energy into cleaning it, the system lost a tiny amount of usable energy and thus added to the disorder of the universe even though the room is now in a more orderly state.

Thermodynamics and our knowledge of how space and time evolved say your belief that the opposite will happen is wrong. But keep arguing this and I will explain how space and time evolved with each step creating more and more complex things along the way.

biological life was something that happened in the universe not something caused by the universe.

And we don't know everything and knowing 5% of something isn't knowing much at all.

In fact I'll tell you that we might be incapable of the mental processes required to understand 100% of the universe. My dog will never understand algebra because her brain is physiologically incapable of the thought processes necessary for understanding algebra.

And to use your room example. When you no longer have the energy to put into the room to keep it orderly and eventually you won't therefore entropy will increase in your room and the entire universe. Entropy always wins.

You don't seem to be able to grasp that everything is the universe. Everything began the exact same way. Since that time it has merely changed form. But are you arguing that there was no cosmic evolution or stellar evolution or chemical evolution or biological evolution or evolution of consciousness? Are you arguing that hydrogen and helium is not a more advanced state than sub atomic particles? Are you arguing that stellar structures are not a more advanced state than hydrogen or helium?

I guess you will just have to go around knowing next to nothing then. I on the other hand will continue to argue that I know what I know whereas every argument you make you will have to add the caveat that you don't really know anything after you tell people what you know. Sounds kind of stupid when put that way, right?

It is because of entropy that you should have known the universe had to begin with matter and energy being created literally out of nothing.

There are no limits to what the human mind can learn. It is by far the most complex thing the universe has ever produced.

You have been saying the universe creates life, creates intelligence etc. It doesn't create anything. We may be created from the same matter as the universe but we are not the universe but rather a insignificant amalgamation of elements on an insignificant planet. We could wink out of existence tomorrow with no effect on the universe.

And how can you say that the human mind is the most complex thing in the universe when we don't understand 95% of the universe?

There are limits to every physical and biological system. Denying that is plain idiocy.

And only a fool thinks he know everything. Ask any physicist if they know everything about the universe and they will tell you exactly what I just did. I know what I know but I also know that that I and indeed the entire human race don't know everything. You can't seem to grasp that concept.

Yes, but the process of creating intelligence would still exist because it is written into the laws of nature. It's not an accident that intelligence was created from the creation of space and time.

You are getting hung up on syntax and are trying to make an argument of semantics. So here is what I mean by the universe produced intelligence...

Scientific evidence tells us that the universe started out as subatomic particles and very quickly formed hydrogen and helium. This is called cosmic evolution. The hydrogen and helium formed stellar structures such as galaxies. This is called stellar evolution. The supernovas of stars created all of the elements and compounds that we see through fusion. This is called chemical evolution. All of these stages or phases had to occur before inanimate matter could make the leap to life. An event we still do not fully understand although the best understanding is that it can only occur in hot, wet conditions with an atmosphere rich in certain chemical compounds. Even with these conditions being present we do not know how these chemical compounds could fold themselves in just the correct sequence to create life capable of replicating itself. The amount of information required for life to replicate is staggering. But however life made this leap we know it had to begin from a single celled organism and evolved into evermore increasing complex life forms up to the point that beings that know and create eventually arose.

I don't need a lesson on how the universe formed. I know all that.

You are assigning a purpose to the universe. It has none.

If you had known that then you would also know that intelligence arising wasn't an accident. Intelligence was predestined to exist through the laws of nature. Biological life, consciousness are logical manifestations of the evolution of space time. They are literally built into the fabric of existence.

I am assigning purpose to existence. You are equivocating.

Predestined by who?

Nothing is predestined.

in a universe 93 Billion light years across that is 14 Billion years old there have been an unimaginable incalculable number of random events that have resulted in the state of the universe today

 

[Blues Man]

And how can you say that the human mind is the most complex thing in the universe when we don't understand 95% of the universe?

Apparently I am not alone.

The Most Complicated Object in the Universe - UConn Today

UConn Health Journal: UConn Health pioneers explore new frontiers to better understand one of humankind’s perpetual mysteries.

today.uconn.edu

Foreword - Discovering the Brain - NCBI Bookshelf

The brain is the 'most complex thing in the universe'

Prof Sir Robin Murray has dedicated his 40-year career to psychiatric illnesses, particularly schizophrenia.

www.bbc.com

And they are no more correct that you are.

The fact is our little slice of the Milky Way galaxy is an infinitesimal piece of the entire universe. We have absolutely no clue what sentient beings exists in the rest of the universe.

So it is the height of arrogance to stand on this planet and look at a universe that is 93 billion light years in diameter and proclaim that your brain is the pinnacle of evolution in this unimaginably vast universe.

And all physical and biological systems have a limit and the human brain is both physical and biological.

Do you have a link that argues against mind not being the most complex thing produced by the evolution of space and time?

Can you at least offer the attributes of what it would take to be considered more complex than the mind?

You're the one who likes logic right?

Where is the logic in assuming your mind is the pinnacle of evolution in the entire universe when that universe is 93 Billion light years in diameter and 14 billion years old and we as a species have not even ventured beyond our own inner solar system and have only existed as a species for 200000 years ?

and we know that all physical and biological systems have limits but you think the human brain has no limits.

Human intelligence: have we reached the limit of knowledge?

Despite huge advances in science over the past century, our understanding of nature is still far from complete. Not only have scientists failed to find the Holy Grail of physics—unifying the very large (general relativity) with the very small (quantum mechanics) – they still don't know what the...

phys.org

 

[ding]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

Our first allegiance is to ourselves then our families. the country is a bit further down on the list for me

There are logical reasons the sequence is God, country and family.

I don't think a belief is gods is logical.

That's because you don't have a perception of God beyond magical fairytales, bro. So of course you don't believe belief in God is logical. I wouldn't believe in God either if I had your perception of God.

Interesting,

Do I have to believe before my perception changes or do I believe after I see something that changes my perception?

I think you have to have an open mind and objectively look at all sides before arriving at objective truth on any issue.

I do have an open mind.

I just like to have some sort of empirical evidence. There have been many times I have changed my opinion when I was presented with sufficient evidence that contradicted my original stance on a subject.

The universe and everything that has transpired since it was created from nothing being hardwired to produce intelligence is the evidence.

Not really.

The absence of scientific evidence is not in itself proof of a god being the creator of the universe.

It is just as possible that we do not yet have the technology or the mental capacity to see or understand the process of the inception of the universe.

There's no absence of evidence.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God. If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept.

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

And how do you know the evidence we have regarding the inception of the universe is all the evidence there is?

And now you're bringing the spiritual into this? And we've already been over the morality and ethics argument and we do not agree so I see no need to rehash that one.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

But we don't know what happened the nanosecond before the beginning so all we know is the effect of the cause but not the cause itself.

You want to say the cause is a god. I am saying that we do not have enough information to say what caused the creation of the universe and the only thing we can see and measure are the aftereffects of the inception of the universe.

If we do not know what happened before the inflationary event we call the big bang we do not know the cause.

I am saying that the first cause cannot be matter or energy, so what is left?

We don't know.

You are assuming it was some otherworldly being.

I am not making that assumption because I have no evidence of the existence of any otherworldly beings.

Is it an assumption that the nature of intelligence is to create intelligence?

of course.

We think ourselves intelligent beings but have we created intelligence?

You like to attach characteristics to the universe because you have assigned a purpose to the universe. I don't assume the universe has a purpose.

We made smart phones. We made automation. We made PLC logic. We made AI.

I don't believe anyone would argue that we are obsessed with making smart things. Except maybe you.

Of course the universe has a purpose. It is an intelligence creating machine. You can only tell what something purpose is by its finished product. That would be intelligence for the universe. Everything that unfolded was leading to the universe becoming self aware. Despite your objection, you are a product of the universe.

Those are nothing but storage devices.

They are not intelligent in and of themselves but rather run on a set of rules and algorithms that humans have devised.

And I never said I wasn't a product of the universe.

I can be a product of a universe that has no purpose.

Right, but they simulate intelligence because man is obsessed with making smart things. Thus proving it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

You could be a product of a universe that has no purpose but that would be an astronomically incredible series of coincidences. It is much more likely that intelligence hardwired into the laws of nature for intelligence to exist than it is an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do because matter and energy follow laws of nature which in and of themselves are no things and had to exist before space and time because space and time were created according to the laws of nature.

We have not created intelligence. A smart phone isn't smart in and of itself. it can't do anything other than what we have told it to do.

And considering the size and age of the universe it is not unreasonable to think that we very well may be the results of trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events over billions of years.

I'm not going to argue with you about this. If you don't want to believe that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence, then don't.

As for random events... I already explained this to you... If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

You are saying that we created intelligence we haven't.

We have created storage devices that work very quickly and operate on a simple binary code. That is not intelligence but you are claiming it is.

So since you think everything that has ever happened has happened for some purpose tell me what is the purpose of a single collision of 2 individual dust molecules that happened 12 billion years ago.

What part of... "I'm not going to argue with you about this. If you don't want to believe that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence, then don't" did you not understand. I've made my case.

You take what I wrote out of context. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The reason two individual dust particles collided was because they were on a collision path. So they did not just randomly collide.

You don't understand that no human creation up to this point is an intelligence. but back to your assertion that the universe and therefore everything that has ever happened in the universe has a purpose.

So then is it your contention that those 2 dust molecules were put on a collision course for some reason by some intelligent force or were they merely on that collision course because of an unknown number of other events occurring over an unknown time span? If it was the latter then it was a random event.

And how does that collision have any purpose?

No. That's not what I am saying. Try again.

If the universe has a purpose then surely everything that happens in the universe must work towards that purpose.

Or since we don't know what 95% of the universe is made of or how it interacts with any of the 5% we do know are you just imposing a purpose on the universe?

It does, but not in the way you are describing.

so what is the purpose as you describe it of a collision between 2 dust molecules 12 billion years ago?

To exist and to evolve.

and who defined that purpose? The dust? and how does a dust molecule evolve?

There is no purpose to a dust collision. It just is what it is. Just like the universe it just is. it is neither perfect nor imperfect.

Humans like to see patterns where there are none.

The laws of nature define the evolution of the universe. The purpose of the dust particles is to exist and to evolve. The reason they collided was because they were on a collision course. The dust particles exist as a part of the evolution of space and time just as you exist as part of the evolution of space and time.

The pattern is complexification and it cannot be disputed. Since space and time were created from nothing matter and energy has continued to complexify and evolve.

we obviously don't know all the "laws" of nature since we only have an understanding of about 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

And entropy is one of the things we understand. The universe will not become more and more complex. In fact it's the opposite of what will happen.

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Stars will run out of hydrogen and wink out and the universe will cool and settle at a temperature a few degrees K above absolute zero.

People throw out that we don't understand dark matter so we don't know everything argument all the time. We don't need to know everything to know the things we do know. Your understanding of entropy is flawed. Entropy can be looked at several different ways. If you want to argue that entropy prevents cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the creation of consciousness you are going to lose that argument because these are all known stages of the evolution of space and time. It is entirely possible for matter and energy to complexify while the total disorder of the universe increases because usable energy was lost to the system in the creation in the process of complexification. I can use a messy room being cleaned as an example. The room starts out in a more disorderly state. It is cleaned to a more orderly state. The cost to clean the room used energy. There are no 100% efficient processes. In every exchange some energy will be lost to the system. So that even when the room became more orderly by putting energy into cleaning it, the system lost a tiny amount of usable energy and thus added to the disorder of the universe even though the room is now in a more orderly state.

Thermodynamics and our knowledge of how space and time evolved say your belief that the opposite will happen is wrong. But keep arguing this and I will explain how space and time evolved with each step creating more and more complex things along the way.

biological life was something that happened in the universe not something caused by the universe.

And we don't know everything and knowing 5% of something isn't knowing much at all.

In fact I'll tell you that we might be incapable of the mental processes required to understand 100% of the universe. My dog will never understand algebra because her brain is physiologically incapable of the thought processes necessary for understanding algebra.

And to use your room example. When you no longer have the energy to put into the room to keep it orderly and eventually you won't therefore entropy will increase in your room and the entire universe. Entropy always wins.

You don't seem to be able to grasp that everything is the universe. Everything began the exact same way. Since that time it has merely changed form. But are you arguing that there was no cosmic evolution or stellar evolution or chemical evolution or biological evolution or evolution of consciousness? Are you arguing that hydrogen and helium is not a more advanced state than sub atomic particles? Are you arguing that stellar structures are not a more advanced state than hydrogen or helium?

I guess you will just have to go around knowing next to nothing then. I on the other hand will continue to argue that I know what I know whereas every argument you make you will have to add the caveat that you don't really know anything after you tell people what you know. Sounds kind of stupid when put that way, right?

It is because of entropy that you should have known the universe had to begin with matter and energy being created literally out of nothing.

There are no limits to what the human mind can learn. It is by far the most complex thing the universe has ever produced.

You have been saying the universe creates life, creates intelligence etc. It doesn't create anything. We may be created from the same matter as the universe but we are not the universe but rather a insignificant amalgamation of elements on an insignificant planet. We could wink out of existence tomorrow with no effect on the universe.

And how can you say that the human mind is the most complex thing in the universe when we don't understand 95% of the universe?

There are limits to every physical and biological system. Denying that is plain idiocy.

And only a fool thinks he know everything. Ask any physicist if they know everything about the universe and they will tell you exactly what I just did. I know what I know but I also know that that I and indeed the entire human race don't know everything. You can't seem to grasp that concept.

Yes, but the process of creating intelligence would still exist because it is written into the laws of nature. It's not an accident that intelligence was created from the creation of space and time.

You are getting hung up on syntax and are trying to make an argument of semantics. So here is what I mean by the universe produced intelligence...

Scientific evidence tells us that the universe started out as subatomic particles and very quickly formed hydrogen and helium. This is called cosmic evolution. The hydrogen and helium formed stellar structures such as galaxies. This is called stellar evolution. The supernovas of stars created all of the elements and compounds that we see through fusion. This is called chemical evolution. All of these stages or phases had to occur before inanimate matter could make the leap to life. An event we still do not fully understand although the best understanding is that it can only occur in hot, wet conditions with an atmosphere rich in certain chemical compounds. Even with these conditions being present we do not know how these chemical compounds could fold themselves in just the correct sequence to create life capable of replicating itself. The amount of information required for life to replicate is staggering. But however life made this leap we know it had to begin from a single celled organism and evolved into evermore increasing complex life forms up to the point that beings that know and create eventually arose.

I don't need a lesson on how the universe formed. I know all that.

You are assigning a purpose to the universe. It has none.

If you had known that then you would also know that intelligence arising wasn't an accident. Intelligence was predestined to exist through the laws of nature. Biological life, consciousness are logical manifestations of the evolution of space time. They are literally built into the fabric of existence.

I am assigning purpose to existence. You are equivocating.

Predestined by who?

Nothing is predestined.

in a universe 93 Billion light years across that is 14 Billion years old there have been an unimaginable incalculable number of random events that have resulted in the state of the universe today

The laws of nature.

The formation of hydrogen and helium from subatomic particles were predestined by the laws of nature.

You see them as random, cause and effect doesn't.

 

[ding]

And how can you say that the human mind is the most complex thing in the universe when we don't understand 95% of the universe?

Apparently I am not alone.

The Most Complicated Object in the Universe - UConn Today

UConn Health Journal: UConn Health pioneers explore new frontiers to better understand one of humankind’s perpetual mysteries.

today.uconn.edu

Foreword - Discovering the Brain - NCBI Bookshelf

The brain is the 'most complex thing in the universe'

Prof Sir Robin Murray has dedicated his 40-year career to psychiatric illnesses, particularly schizophrenia.

www.bbc.com

And they are no more correct that you are.

The fact is our little slice of the Milky Way galaxy is an infinitesimal piece of the entire universe. We have absolutely no clue what sentient beings exists in the rest of the universe.

So it is the height of arrogance to stand on this planet and look at a universe that is 93 billion light years in diameter and proclaim that your brain is the pinnacle of evolution in this unimaginably vast universe.

And all physical and biological systems have a limit and the human brain is both physical and biological.

Do you have a link that argues against mind not being the most complex thing produced by the evolution of space and time?

Can you at least offer the attributes of what it would take to be considered more complex than the mind?

You're the one who likes logic right?

Where is the logic in assuming your mind is the pinnacle of evolution in the entire universe when that universe is 93 Billion light years in diameter and 14 billion years old and we as a species have not even ventured beyond our own inner solar system and have only existed as a species for 200000 years ?

and we know that all physical and biological systems have limits but you think the human brain has no limits.

Human intelligence: have we reached the limit of knowledge?

Despite huge advances in science over the past century, our understanding of nature is still far from complete. Not only have scientists failed to find the Holy Grail of physics—unifying the very large (general relativity) with the very small (quantum mechanics) – they still don't know what the...

phys.org

Changing subjects? I will be happy to reply to your questions after you reply to the ones I asked before you asked yours.

Do you have a link that argues against mind not being the most complex thing produced by the evolution of space and time?

Can you at least offer the attributes of what it would take to be considered more complex than the mind?

 

[Blues Man]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

Our first allegiance is to ourselves then our families. the country is a bit further down on the list for me

There are logical reasons the sequence is God, country and family.

I don't think a belief is gods is logical.

That's because you don't have a perception of God beyond magical fairytales, bro. So of course you don't believe belief in God is logical. I wouldn't believe in God either if I had your perception of God.

Interesting,

Do I have to believe before my perception changes or do I believe after I see something that changes my perception?

I think you have to have an open mind and objectively look at all sides before arriving at objective truth on any issue.

I do have an open mind.

I just like to have some sort of empirical evidence. There have been many times I have changed my opinion when I was presented with sufficient evidence that contradicted my original stance on a subject.

The universe and everything that has transpired since it was created from nothing being hardwired to produce intelligence is the evidence.

Not really.

The absence of scientific evidence is not in itself proof of a god being the creator of the universe.

It is just as possible that we do not yet have the technology or the mental capacity to see or understand the process of the inception of the universe.

There's no absence of evidence.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God. If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept.

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

And how do you know the evidence we have regarding the inception of the universe is all the evidence there is?

And now you're bringing the spiritual into this? And we've already been over the morality and ethics argument and we do not agree so I see no need to rehash that one.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

But we don't know what happened the nanosecond before the beginning so all we know is the effect of the cause but not the cause itself.

You want to say the cause is a god. I am saying that we do not have enough information to say what caused the creation of the universe and the only thing we can see and measure are the aftereffects of the inception of the universe.

If we do not know what happened before the inflationary event we call the big bang we do not know the cause.

I am saying that the first cause cannot be matter or energy, so what is left?

We don't know.

You are assuming it was some otherworldly being.

I am not making that assumption because I have no evidence of the existence of any otherworldly beings.

Is it an assumption that the nature of intelligence is to create intelligence?

of course.

We think ourselves intelligent beings but have we created intelligence?

You like to attach characteristics to the universe because you have assigned a purpose to the universe. I don't assume the universe has a purpose.

We made smart phones. We made automation. We made PLC logic. We made AI.

I don't believe anyone would argue that we are obsessed with making smart things. Except maybe you.

Of course the universe has a purpose. It is an intelligence creating machine. You can only tell what something purpose is by its finished product. That would be intelligence for the universe. Everything that unfolded was leading to the universe becoming self aware. Despite your objection, you are a product of the universe.

Those are nothing but storage devices.

They are not intelligent in and of themselves but rather run on a set of rules and algorithms that humans have devised.

And I never said I wasn't a product of the universe.

I can be a product of a universe that has no purpose.

Right, but they simulate intelligence because man is obsessed with making smart things. Thus proving it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

You could be a product of a universe that has no purpose but that would be an astronomically incredible series of coincidences. It is much more likely that intelligence hardwired into the laws of nature for intelligence to exist than it is an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do because matter and energy follow laws of nature which in and of themselves are no things and had to exist before space and time because space and time were created according to the laws of nature.

We have not created intelligence. A smart phone isn't smart in and of itself. it can't do anything other than what we have told it to do.

And considering the size and age of the universe it is not unreasonable to think that we very well may be the results of trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events over billions of years.

I'm not going to argue with you about this. If you don't want to believe that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence, then don't.

As for random events... I already explained this to you... If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

You are saying that we created intelligence we haven't.

We have created storage devices that work very quickly and operate on a simple binary code. That is not intelligence but you are claiming it is.

So since you think everything that has ever happened has happened for some purpose tell me what is the purpose of a single collision of 2 individual dust molecules that happened 12 billion years ago.

What part of... "I'm not going to argue with you about this. If you don't want to believe that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence, then don't" did you not understand. I've made my case.

You take what I wrote out of context. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The reason two individual dust particles collided was because they were on a collision path. So they did not just randomly collide.

You don't understand that no human creation up to this point is an intelligence. but back to your assertion that the universe and therefore everything that has ever happened in the universe has a purpose.

So then is it your contention that those 2 dust molecules were put on a collision course for some reason by some intelligent force or were they merely on that collision course because of an unknown number of other events occurring over an unknown time span? If it was the latter then it was a random event.

And how does that collision have any purpose?

No. That's not what I am saying. Try again.

If the universe has a purpose then surely everything that happens in the universe must work towards that purpose.

Or since we don't know what 95% of the universe is made of or how it interacts with any of the 5% we do know are you just imposing a purpose on the universe?

It does, but not in the way you are describing.

so what is the purpose as you describe it of a collision between 2 dust molecules 12 billion years ago?

To exist and to evolve.

and who defined that purpose? The dust? and how does a dust molecule evolve?

There is no purpose to a dust collision. It just is what it is. Just like the universe it just is. it is neither perfect nor imperfect.

Humans like to see patterns where there are none.

The laws of nature define the evolution of the universe. The purpose of the dust particles is to exist and to evolve. The reason they collided was because they were on a collision course. The dust particles exist as a part of the evolution of space and time just as you exist as part of the evolution of space and time.

The pattern is complexification and it cannot be disputed. Since space and time were created from nothing matter and energy has continued to complexify and evolve.

we obviously don't know all the "laws" of nature since we only have an understanding of about 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

And entropy is one of the things we understand. The universe will not become more and more complex. In fact it's the opposite of what will happen.

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Stars will run out of hydrogen and wink out and the universe will cool and settle at a temperature a few degrees K above absolute zero.

People throw out that we don't understand dark matter so we don't know everything argument all the time. We don't need to know everything to know the things we do know. Your understanding of entropy is flawed. Entropy can be looked at several different ways. If you want to argue that entropy prevents cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the creation of consciousness you are going to lose that argument because these are all known stages of the evolution of space and time. It is entirely possible for matter and energy to complexify while the total disorder of the universe increases because usable energy was lost to the system in the creation in the process of complexification. I can use a messy room being cleaned as an example. The room starts out in a more disorderly state. It is cleaned to a more orderly state. The cost to clean the room used energy. There are no 100% efficient processes. In every exchange some energy will be lost to the system. So that even when the room became more orderly by putting energy into cleaning it, the system lost a tiny amount of usable energy and thus added to the disorder of the universe even though the room is now in a more orderly state.

Thermodynamics and our knowledge of how space and time evolved say your belief that the opposite will happen is wrong. But keep arguing this and I will explain how space and time evolved with each step creating more and more complex things along the way.

biological life was something that happened in the universe not something caused by the universe.

And we don't know everything and knowing 5% of something isn't knowing much at all.

In fact I'll tell you that we might be incapable of the mental processes required to understand 100% of the universe. My dog will never understand algebra because her brain is physiologically incapable of the thought processes necessary for understanding algebra.

And to use your room example. When you no longer have the energy to put into the room to keep it orderly and eventually you won't therefore entropy will increase in your room and the entire universe. Entropy always wins.

You don't seem to be able to grasp that everything is the universe. Everything began the exact same way. Since that time it has merely changed form. But are you arguing that there was no cosmic evolution or stellar evolution or chemical evolution or biological evolution or evolution of consciousness? Are you arguing that hydrogen and helium is not a more advanced state than sub atomic particles? Are you arguing that stellar structures are not a more advanced state than hydrogen or helium?

I guess you will just have to go around knowing next to nothing then. I on the other hand will continue to argue that I know what I know whereas every argument you make you will have to add the caveat that you don't really know anything after you tell people what you know. Sounds kind of stupid when put that way, right?

It is because of entropy that you should have known the universe had to begin with matter and energy being created literally out of nothing.

There are no limits to what the human mind can learn. It is by far the most complex thing the universe has ever produced.

You have been saying the universe creates life, creates intelligence etc. It doesn't create anything. We may be created from the same matter as the universe but we are not the universe but rather a insignificant amalgamation of elements on an insignificant planet. We could wink out of existence tomorrow with no effect on the universe.

And how can you say that the human mind is the most complex thing in the universe when we don't understand 95% of the universe?

There are limits to every physical and biological system. Denying that is plain idiocy.

And only a fool thinks he know everything. Ask any physicist if they know everything about the universe and they will tell you exactly what I just did. I know what I know but I also know that that I and indeed the entire human race don't know everything. You can't seem to grasp that concept.

Yes, but the process of creating intelligence would still exist because it is written into the laws of nature. It's not an accident that intelligence was created from the creation of space and time.

You are getting hung up on syntax and are trying to make an argument of semantics. So here is what I mean by the universe produced intelligence...

Scientific evidence tells us that the universe started out as subatomic particles and very quickly formed hydrogen and helium. This is called cosmic evolution. The hydrogen and helium formed stellar structures such as galaxies. This is called stellar evolution. The supernovas of stars created all of the elements and compounds that we see through fusion. This is called chemical evolution. All of these stages or phases had to occur before inanimate matter could make the leap to life. An event we still do not fully understand although the best understanding is that it can only occur in hot, wet conditions with an atmosphere rich in certain chemical compounds. Even with these conditions being present we do not know how these chemical compounds could fold themselves in just the correct sequence to create life capable of replicating itself. The amount of information required for life to replicate is staggering. But however life made this leap we know it had to begin from a single celled organism and evolved into evermore increasing complex life forms up to the point that beings that know and create eventually arose.

I don't need a lesson on how the universe formed. I know all that.

You are assigning a purpose to the universe. It has none.

If you had known that then you would also know that intelligence arising wasn't an accident. Intelligence was predestined to exist through the laws of nature. Biological life, consciousness are logical manifestations of the evolution of space time. They are literally built into the fabric of existence.

I am assigning purpose to existence. You are equivocating.

Predestined by who?

Nothing is predestined.

in a universe 93 Billion light years across that is 14 Billion years old there have been an unimaginable incalculable number of random events that have resulted in the state of the universe today

The laws of nature.

The formation of hydrogen and helium from subatomic particles were predestined by the laws of nature.

You see them as random, cause and effect doesn't.

The laws of nature that you are referring to did not exist before the universe so could not be responsible responsible for any predetermined destiny.

We see the laws of cause and effect from the perspective of an observer arriving well after the inception of the universe and that will be gone well before the universe ceases to be.

Since we do not know what happened before the instant the universe came to be we do not know the cause of that inception. There was no predetermination that life would evolve.

 

[Blues Man]

And how can you say that the human mind is the most complex thing in the universe when we don't understand 95% of the universe?

Apparently I am not alone.

The Most Complicated Object in the Universe - UConn Today

UConn Health Journal: UConn Health pioneers explore new frontiers to better understand one of humankind’s perpetual mysteries.

today.uconn.edu

Foreword - Discovering the Brain - NCBI Bookshelf

The brain is the 'most complex thing in the universe'

Prof Sir Robin Murray has dedicated his 40-year career to psychiatric illnesses, particularly schizophrenia.

www.bbc.com

And they are no more correct that you are.

The fact is our little slice of the Milky Way galaxy is an infinitesimal piece of the entire universe. We have absolutely no clue what sentient beings exists in the rest of the universe.

So it is the height of arrogance to stand on this planet and look at a universe that is 93 billion light years in diameter and proclaim that your brain is the pinnacle of evolution in this unimaginably vast universe.

And all physical and biological systems have a limit and the human brain is both physical and biological.

Do you have a link that argues against mind not being the most complex thing produced by the evolution of space and time?

Can you at least offer the attributes of what it would take to be considered more complex than the mind?

You're the one who likes logic right?

Where is the logic in assuming your mind is the pinnacle of evolution in the entire universe when that universe is 93 Billion light years in diameter and 14 billion years old and we as a species have not even ventured beyond our own inner solar system and have only existed as a species for 200000 years ?

and we know that all physical and biological systems have limits but you think the human brain has no limits.

Human intelligence: have we reached the limit of knowledge?

Despite huge advances in science over the past century, our understanding of nature is still far from complete. Not only have scientists failed to find the Holy Grail of physics—unifying the very large (general relativity) with the very small (quantum mechanics) – they still don't know what the...

phys.org

Changing subjects? I will be happy to reply to your questions after you reply to the ones I asked before you asked yours.

Do you have a link that argues against mind not being the most complex thing produced by the evolution of space and time?

Can you at least offer the attributes of what it would take to be considered more complex than the mind?

I gave you a link.

Human intelligence is the product of the brain.

And are you equating the brain with the mind?

If the human brain is the most complex biological organ we know of and we do not fully understand the human brain then we are incapable of imagining the workings of a more complex brain. Just like a dog is incapable of imagining what it's like to be human.

 

[ding]

The human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected to 10,000 other neurons. and probably a thousand different types of nerve cells.

And how can you say that the human mind is the most complex thing in the universe when we don't understand 95% of the universe?

Apparently I am not alone.

The Most Complicated Object in the Universe - UConn Today

UConn Health Journal: UConn Health pioneers explore new frontiers to better understand one of humankind’s perpetual mysteries.

today.uconn.edu

Foreword - Discovering the Brain - NCBI Bookshelf

The brain is the 'most complex thing in the universe'

Prof Sir Robin Murray has dedicated his 40-year career to psychiatric illnesses, particularly schizophrenia.

www.bbc.com

And they are no more correct that you are.

The fact is our little slice of the Milky Way galaxy is an infinitesimal piece of the entire universe. We have absolutely no clue what sentient beings exists in the rest of the universe.

So it is the height of arrogance to stand on this planet and look at a universe that is 93 billion light years in diameter and proclaim that your brain is the pinnacle of evolution in this unimaginably vast universe.

And all physical and biological systems have a limit and the human brain is both physical and biological.

Do you have a link that argues against mind not being the most complex thing produced by the evolution of space and time?

Can you at least offer the attributes of what it would take to be considered more complex than the mind?

You're the one who likes logic right?

Where is the logic in assuming your mind is the pinnacle of evolution in the entire universe when that universe is 93 Billion light years in diameter and 14 billion years old and we as a species have not even ventured beyond our own inner solar system and have only existed as a species for 200000 years ?

and we know that all physical and biological systems have limits but you think the human brain has no limits.

Human intelligence: have we reached the limit of knowledge?

Despite huge advances in science over the past century, our understanding of nature is still far from complete. Not only have scientists failed to find the Holy Grail of physics—unifying the very large (general relativity) with the very small (quantum mechanics) – they still don't know what the...

phys.org

Changing subjects? I will be happy to reply to your questions after you reply to the ones I asked before you asked yours.

Do you have a link that argues against mind not being the most complex thing produced by the evolution of space and time?

Can you at least offer the attributes of what it would take to be considered more complex than the mind?

I gave you a link.

Human intelligence is the product of the brain.

And are you equating the brain with the mind?

If the human brain is the most complex biological organ we know of and we do not fully understand the human brain then we are incapable of imagining the workings of a more complex brain. Just like a dog is incapable of imagining what it's like to be human.

So the link says mind is not the most complex thing produced by the universe. Can you show me the exact quote cause I must have missed it?

Yes, you can equate mind with brain. I don't see a problem with that. Just don't try an say some other mind is the most complex thing in the universe cause that's just fuckery.

So your argument is that there might be some other brain more advanced than the human brain? Same concept. Still the most complex thing produced by the universe is mind.

Can you name something other than an alien's mind that is more complex than mind?

 

[ding]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

Our first allegiance is to ourselves then our families. the country is a bit further down on the list for me

There are logical reasons the sequence is God, country and family.

I don't think a belief is gods is logical.

That's because you don't have a perception of God beyond magical fairytales, bro. So of course you don't believe belief in God is logical. I wouldn't believe in God either if I had your perception of God.

Interesting,

Do I have to believe before my perception changes or do I believe after I see something that changes my perception?

I think you have to have an open mind and objectively look at all sides before arriving at objective truth on any issue.

I do have an open mind.

I just like to have some sort of empirical evidence. There have been many times I have changed my opinion when I was presented with sufficient evidence that contradicted my original stance on a subject.

The universe and everything that has transpired since it was created from nothing being hardwired to produce intelligence is the evidence.

Not really.

The absence of scientific evidence is not in itself proof of a god being the creator of the universe.

It is just as possible that we do not yet have the technology or the mental capacity to see or understand the process of the inception of the universe.

There's no absence of evidence.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God. If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept.

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

And how do you know the evidence we have regarding the inception of the universe is all the evidence there is?

And now you're bringing the spiritual into this? And we've already been over the morality and ethics argument and we do not agree so I see no need to rehash that one.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

But we don't know what happened the nanosecond before the beginning so all we know is the effect of the cause but not the cause itself.

You want to say the cause is a god. I am saying that we do not have enough information to say what caused the creation of the universe and the only thing we can see and measure are the aftereffects of the inception of the universe.

If we do not know what happened before the inflationary event we call the big bang we do not know the cause.

I am saying that the first cause cannot be matter or energy, so what is left?

We don't know.

You are assuming it was some otherworldly being.

I am not making that assumption because I have no evidence of the existence of any otherworldly beings.

Is it an assumption that the nature of intelligence is to create intelligence?

of course.

We think ourselves intelligent beings but have we created intelligence?

You like to attach characteristics to the universe because you have assigned a purpose to the universe. I don't assume the universe has a purpose.

We made smart phones. We made automation. We made PLC logic. We made AI.

I don't believe anyone would argue that we are obsessed with making smart things. Except maybe you.

Of course the universe has a purpose. It is an intelligence creating machine. You can only tell what something purpose is by its finished product. That would be intelligence for the universe. Everything that unfolded was leading to the universe becoming self aware. Despite your objection, you are a product of the universe.

Those are nothing but storage devices.

They are not intelligent in and of themselves but rather run on a set of rules and algorithms that humans have devised.

And I never said I wasn't a product of the universe.

I can be a product of a universe that has no purpose.

Right, but they simulate intelligence because man is obsessed with making smart things. Thus proving it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

You could be a product of a universe that has no purpose but that would be an astronomically incredible series of coincidences. It is much more likely that intelligence hardwired into the laws of nature for intelligence to exist than it is an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do because matter and energy follow laws of nature which in and of themselves are no things and had to exist before space and time because space and time were created according to the laws of nature.

We have not created intelligence. A smart phone isn't smart in and of itself. it can't do anything other than what we have told it to do.

And considering the size and age of the universe it is not unreasonable to think that we very well may be the results of trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events over billions of years.

I'm not going to argue with you about this. If you don't want to believe that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence, then don't.

As for random events... I already explained this to you... If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

You are saying that we created intelligence we haven't.

We have created storage devices that work very quickly and operate on a simple binary code. That is not intelligence but you are claiming it is.

So since you think everything that has ever happened has happened for some purpose tell me what is the purpose of a single collision of 2 individual dust molecules that happened 12 billion years ago.

What part of... "I'm not going to argue with you about this. If you don't want to believe that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence, then don't" did you not understand. I've made my case.

You take what I wrote out of context. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The reason two individual dust particles collided was because they were on a collision path. So they did not just randomly collide.

You don't understand that no human creation up to this point is an intelligence. but back to your assertion that the universe and therefore everything that has ever happened in the universe has a purpose.

So then is it your contention that those 2 dust molecules were put on a collision course for some reason by some intelligent force or were they merely on that collision course because of an unknown number of other events occurring over an unknown time span? If it was the latter then it was a random event.

And how does that collision have any purpose?

No. That's not what I am saying. Try again.

If the universe has a purpose then surely everything that happens in the universe must work towards that purpose.

Or since we don't know what 95% of the universe is made of or how it interacts with any of the 5% we do know are you just imposing a purpose on the universe?

It does, but not in the way you are describing.

so what is the purpose as you describe it of a collision between 2 dust molecules 12 billion years ago?

To exist and to evolve.

and who defined that purpose? The dust? and how does a dust molecule evolve?

There is no purpose to a dust collision. It just is what it is. Just like the universe it just is. it is neither perfect nor imperfect.

Humans like to see patterns where there are none.

The laws of nature define the evolution of the universe. The purpose of the dust particles is to exist and to evolve. The reason they collided was because they were on a collision course. The dust particles exist as a part of the evolution of space and time just as you exist as part of the evolution of space and time.

The pattern is complexification and it cannot be disputed. Since space and time were created from nothing matter and energy has continued to complexify and evolve.

we obviously don't know all the "laws" of nature since we only have an understanding of about 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

And entropy is one of the things we understand. The universe will not become more and more complex. In fact it's the opposite of what will happen.

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Stars will run out of hydrogen and wink out and the universe will cool and settle at a temperature a few degrees K above absolute zero.

People throw out that we don't understand dark matter so we don't know everything argument all the time. We don't need to know everything to know the things we do know. Your understanding of entropy is flawed. Entropy can be looked at several different ways. If you want to argue that entropy prevents cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the creation of consciousness you are going to lose that argument because these are all known stages of the evolution of space and time. It is entirely possible for matter and energy to complexify while the total disorder of the universe increases because usable energy was lost to the system in the creation in the process of complexification. I can use a messy room being cleaned as an example. The room starts out in a more disorderly state. It is cleaned to a more orderly state. The cost to clean the room used energy. There are no 100% efficient processes. In every exchange some energy will be lost to the system. So that even when the room became more orderly by putting energy into cleaning it, the system lost a tiny amount of usable energy and thus added to the disorder of the universe even though the room is now in a more orderly state.

Thermodynamics and our knowledge of how space and time evolved say your belief that the opposite will happen is wrong. But keep arguing this and I will explain how space and time evolved with each step creating more and more complex things along the way.

biological life was something that happened in the universe not something caused by the universe.

And we don't know everything and knowing 5% of something isn't knowing much at all.

In fact I'll tell you that we might be incapable of the mental processes required to understand 100% of the universe. My dog will never understand algebra because her brain is physiologically incapable of the thought processes necessary for understanding algebra.

And to use your room example. When you no longer have the energy to put into the room to keep it orderly and eventually you won't therefore entropy will increase in your room and the entire universe. Entropy always wins.

You don't seem to be able to grasp that everything is the universe. Everything began the exact same way. Since that time it has merely changed form. But are you arguing that there was no cosmic evolution or stellar evolution or chemical evolution or biological evolution or evolution of consciousness? Are you arguing that hydrogen and helium is not a more advanced state than sub atomic particles? Are you arguing that stellar structures are not a more advanced state than hydrogen or helium?

I guess you will just have to go around knowing next to nothing then. I on the other hand will continue to argue that I know what I know whereas every argument you make you will have to add the caveat that you don't really know anything after you tell people what you know. Sounds kind of stupid when put that way, right?

It is because of entropy that you should have known the universe had to begin with matter and energy being created literally out of nothing.

There are no limits to what the human mind can learn. It is by far the most complex thing the universe has ever produced.

You have been saying the universe creates life, creates intelligence etc. It doesn't create anything. We may be created from the same matter as the universe but we are not the universe but rather a insignificant amalgamation of elements on an insignificant planet. We could wink out of existence tomorrow with no effect on the universe.

And how can you say that the human mind is the most complex thing in the universe when we don't understand 95% of the universe?

There are limits to every physical and biological system. Denying that is plain idiocy.

And only a fool thinks he know everything. Ask any physicist if they know everything about the universe and they will tell you exactly what I just did. I know what I know but I also know that that I and indeed the entire human race don't know everything. You can't seem to grasp that concept.

Yes, but the process of creating intelligence would still exist because it is written into the laws of nature. It's not an accident that intelligence was created from the creation of space and time.

You are getting hung up on syntax and are trying to make an argument of semantics. So here is what I mean by the universe produced intelligence...

Scientific evidence tells us that the universe started out as subatomic particles and very quickly formed hydrogen and helium. This is called cosmic evolution. The hydrogen and helium formed stellar structures such as galaxies. This is called stellar evolution. The supernovas of stars created all of the elements and compounds that we see through fusion. This is called chemical evolution. All of these stages or phases had to occur before inanimate matter could make the leap to life. An event we still do not fully understand although the best understanding is that it can only occur in hot, wet conditions with an atmosphere rich in certain chemical compounds. Even with these conditions being present we do not know how these chemical compounds could fold themselves in just the correct sequence to create life capable of replicating itself. The amount of information required for life to replicate is staggering. But however life made this leap we know it had to begin from a single celled organism and evolved into evermore increasing complex life forms up to the point that beings that know and create eventually arose.

I don't need a lesson on how the universe formed. I know all that.

You are assigning a purpose to the universe. It has none.

If you had known that then you would also know that intelligence arising wasn't an accident. Intelligence was predestined to exist through the laws of nature. Biological life, consciousness are logical manifestations of the evolution of space time. They are literally built into the fabric of existence.

I am assigning purpose to existence. You are equivocating.

Predestined by who?

Nothing is predestined.

in a universe 93 Billion light years across that is 14 Billion years old there have been an unimaginable incalculable number of random events that have resulted in the state of the universe today

The laws of nature.

The formation of hydrogen and helium from subatomic particles were predestined by the laws of nature.

You see them as random, cause and effect doesn't.

The laws of nature that you are referring to did not exist before the universe so could not be responsible responsible for any predetermined destiny.

We see the laws of cause and effect from the perspective of an observer arriving well after the inception of the universe and that will be gone well before the universe ceases to be.

Since we do not know what happened before the instant the universe came to be we do not know the cause of that inception. There was no predetermination that life would evolve.

Of course the laws of nature existed before space and time. The creation of space and time followed laws. See 3 minute mark.



You don't need to know what happened before because you know that matter and energy is not eternal and cannot be the first cause. So matter and energy must have a beginning. So matter and energy must be created from nothing according to the laws of nature.

 

[Blues Man]

The human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected to 10,000 other neurons. and probably a thousand different types of nerve cells.

And how can you say that the human mind is the most complex thing in the universe when we don't understand 95% of the universe?

Apparently I am not alone.

The Most Complicated Object in the Universe - UConn Today

UConn Health Journal: UConn Health pioneers explore new frontiers to better understand one of humankind’s perpetual mysteries.

today.uconn.edu

Foreword - Discovering the Brain - NCBI Bookshelf

The brain is the 'most complex thing in the universe'

Prof Sir Robin Murray has dedicated his 40-year career to psychiatric illnesses, particularly schizophrenia.

www.bbc.com

And they are no more correct that you are.

The fact is our little slice of the Milky Way galaxy is an infinitesimal piece of the entire universe. We have absolutely no clue what sentient beings exists in the rest of the universe.

So it is the height of arrogance to stand on this planet and look at a universe that is 93 billion light years in diameter and proclaim that your brain is the pinnacle of evolution in this unimaginably vast universe.

And all physical and biological systems have a limit and the human brain is both physical and biological.

Do you have a link that argues against mind not being the most complex thing produced by the evolution of space and time?

Can you at least offer the attributes of what it would take to be considered more complex than the mind?

You're the one who likes logic right?

Where is the logic in assuming your mind is the pinnacle of evolution in the entire universe when that universe is 93 Billion light years in diameter and 14 billion years old and we as a species have not even ventured beyond our own inner solar system and have only existed as a species for 200000 years ?

and we know that all physical and biological systems have limits but you think the human brain has no limits.

Human intelligence: have we reached the limit of knowledge?

Despite huge advances in science over the past century, our understanding of nature is still far from complete. Not only have scientists failed to find the Holy Grail of physics—unifying the very large (general relativity) with the very small (quantum mechanics) – they still don't know what the...

phys.org

Changing subjects? I will be happy to reply to your questions after you reply to the ones I asked before you asked yours.

Do you have a link that argues against mind not being the most complex thing produced by the evolution of space and time?

Can you at least offer the attributes of what it would take to be considered more complex than the mind?

I gave you a link.

Human intelligence is the product of the brain.

And are you equating the brain with the mind?

If the human brain is the most complex biological organ we know of and we do not fully understand the human brain then we are incapable of imagining the workings of a more complex brain. Just like a dog is incapable of imagining what it's like to be human.

So the link says mind is not the most complex thing produced by the universe. Can you show me the exact quote cause I must have missed it?

Yes, you can equate mind with brain. I don't see a problem with that. Just don't try an say some other mind is the most complex thing in the universe cause that's just fuckery.

So your argument is that there might be some other brain more advanced than the human brain? Same concept. Still the most complex thing produced by the universe is mind.

Can you name something other than an alien's mind that is more complex than mind?

It may be the most complicated thing we are aware of but that does not and will not ever mean it is the most complicated thing that exists or has ever existed in the universe.

You are making the faulty assumption that we know and understand everything that exists and has ever existed in the universe.

And it's not the same thing at all. You say your brain is the most complex thing that ever existed in the universe. That statement rules out any other type of brain as being more complex.

You say there is absolutely no limit to what the human brain can understand yet we know that all physical and biological systems have limits.

And I'll ask again are you equating the mind and the brain or are you referring to the mind as a product of the brain?

 

[Blues Man]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

Our first allegiance is to ourselves then our families. the country is a bit further down on the list for me

There are logical reasons the sequence is God, country and family.

I don't think a belief is gods is logical.

That's because you don't have a perception of God beyond magical fairytales, bro. So of course you don't believe belief in God is logical. I wouldn't believe in God either if I had your perception of God.

Interesting,

Do I have to believe before my perception changes or do I believe after I see something that changes my perception?

I think you have to have an open mind and objectively look at all sides before arriving at objective truth on any issue.

I do have an open mind.

I just like to have some sort of empirical evidence. There have been many times I have changed my opinion when I was presented with sufficient evidence that contradicted my original stance on a subject.

The universe and everything that has transpired since it was created from nothing being hardwired to produce intelligence is the evidence.

Not really.

The absence of scientific evidence is not in itself proof of a god being the creator of the universe.

It is just as possible that we do not yet have the technology or the mental capacity to see or understand the process of the inception of the universe.

There's no absence of evidence.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God. If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept.

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

And how do you know the evidence we have regarding the inception of the universe is all the evidence there is?

And now you're bringing the spiritual into this? And we've already been over the morality and ethics argument and we do not agree so I see no need to rehash that one.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

But we don't know what happened the nanosecond before the beginning so all we know is the effect of the cause but not the cause itself.

You want to say the cause is a god. I am saying that we do not have enough information to say what caused the creation of the universe and the only thing we can see and measure are the aftereffects of the inception of the universe.

If we do not know what happened before the inflationary event we call the big bang we do not know the cause.

I am saying that the first cause cannot be matter or energy, so what is left?

We don't know.

You are assuming it was some otherworldly being.

I am not making that assumption because I have no evidence of the existence of any otherworldly beings.

Is it an assumption that the nature of intelligence is to create intelligence?

of course.

We think ourselves intelligent beings but have we created intelligence?

You like to attach characteristics to the universe because you have assigned a purpose to the universe. I don't assume the universe has a purpose.

We made smart phones. We made automation. We made PLC logic. We made AI.

I don't believe anyone would argue that we are obsessed with making smart things. Except maybe you.

Of course the universe has a purpose. It is an intelligence creating machine. You can only tell what something purpose is by its finished product. That would be intelligence for the universe. Everything that unfolded was leading to the universe becoming self aware. Despite your objection, you are a product of the universe.

Those are nothing but storage devices.

They are not intelligent in and of themselves but rather run on a set of rules and algorithms that humans have devised.

And I never said I wasn't a product of the universe.

I can be a product of a universe that has no purpose.

Right, but they simulate intelligence because man is obsessed with making smart things. Thus proving it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

You could be a product of a universe that has no purpose but that would be an astronomically incredible series of coincidences. It is much more likely that intelligence hardwired into the laws of nature for intelligence to exist than it is an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do because matter and energy follow laws of nature which in and of themselves are no things and had to exist before space and time because space and time were created according to the laws of nature.

We have not created intelligence. A smart phone isn't smart in and of itself. it can't do anything other than what we have told it to do.

And considering the size and age of the universe it is not unreasonable to think that we very well may be the results of trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events over billions of years.

I'm not going to argue with you about this. If you don't want to believe that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence, then don't.

As for random events... I already explained this to you... If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

You are saying that we created intelligence we haven't.

We have created storage devices that work very quickly and operate on a simple binary code. That is not intelligence but you are claiming it is.

So since you think everything that has ever happened has happened for some purpose tell me what is the purpose of a single collision of 2 individual dust molecules that happened 12 billion years ago.

What part of... "I'm not going to argue with you about this. If you don't want to believe that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence, then don't" did you not understand. I've made my case.

You take what I wrote out of context. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The reason two individual dust particles collided was because they were on a collision path. So they did not just randomly collide.

You don't understand that no human creation up to this point is an intelligence. but back to your assertion that the universe and therefore everything that has ever happened in the universe has a purpose.

So then is it your contention that those 2 dust molecules were put on a collision course for some reason by some intelligent force or were they merely on that collision course because of an unknown number of other events occurring over an unknown time span? If it was the latter then it was a random event.

And how does that collision have any purpose?

No. That's not what I am saying. Try again.

If the universe has a purpose then surely everything that happens in the universe must work towards that purpose.

Or since we don't know what 95% of the universe is made of or how it interacts with any of the 5% we do know are you just imposing a purpose on the universe?

It does, but not in the way you are describing.

so what is the purpose as you describe it of a collision between 2 dust molecules 12 billion years ago?

To exist and to evolve.

and who defined that purpose? The dust? and how does a dust molecule evolve?

There is no purpose to a dust collision. It just is what it is. Just like the universe it just is. it is neither perfect nor imperfect.

Humans like to see patterns where there are none.

The laws of nature define the evolution of the universe. The purpose of the dust particles is to exist and to evolve. The reason they collided was because they were on a collision course. The dust particles exist as a part of the evolution of space and time just as you exist as part of the evolution of space and time.

The pattern is complexification and it cannot be disputed. Since space and time were created from nothing matter and energy has continued to complexify and evolve.

we obviously don't know all the "laws" of nature since we only have an understanding of about 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

And entropy is one of the things we understand. The universe will not become more and more complex. In fact it's the opposite of what will happen.

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Stars will run out of hydrogen and wink out and the universe will cool and settle at a temperature a few degrees K above absolute zero.

People throw out that we don't understand dark matter so we don't know everything argument all the time. We don't need to know everything to know the things we do know. Your understanding of entropy is flawed. Entropy can be looked at several different ways. If you want to argue that entropy prevents cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the creation of consciousness you are going to lose that argument because these are all known stages of the evolution of space and time. It is entirely possible for matter and energy to complexify while the total disorder of the universe increases because usable energy was lost to the system in the creation in the process of complexification. I can use a messy room being cleaned as an example. The room starts out in a more disorderly state. It is cleaned to a more orderly state. The cost to clean the room used energy. There are no 100% efficient processes. In every exchange some energy will be lost to the system. So that even when the room became more orderly by putting energy into cleaning it, the system lost a tiny amount of usable energy and thus added to the disorder of the universe even though the room is now in a more orderly state.

Thermodynamics and our knowledge of how space and time evolved say your belief that the opposite will happen is wrong. But keep arguing this and I will explain how space and time evolved with each step creating more and more complex things along the way.

biological life was something that happened in the universe not something caused by the universe.

And we don't know everything and knowing 5% of something isn't knowing much at all.

In fact I'll tell you that we might be incapable of the mental processes required to understand 100% of the universe. My dog will never understand algebra because her brain is physiologically incapable of the thought processes necessary for understanding algebra.

And to use your room example. When you no longer have the energy to put into the room to keep it orderly and eventually you won't therefore entropy will increase in your room and the entire universe. Entropy always wins.

You don't seem to be able to grasp that everything is the universe. Everything began the exact same way. Since that time it has merely changed form. But are you arguing that there was no cosmic evolution or stellar evolution or chemical evolution or biological evolution or evolution of consciousness? Are you arguing that hydrogen and helium is not a more advanced state than sub atomic particles? Are you arguing that stellar structures are not a more advanced state than hydrogen or helium?

I guess you will just have to go around knowing next to nothing then. I on the other hand will continue to argue that I know what I know whereas every argument you make you will have to add the caveat that you don't really know anything after you tell people what you know. Sounds kind of stupid when put that way, right?

It is because of entropy that you should have known the universe had to begin with matter and energy being created literally out of nothing.

There are no limits to what the human mind can learn. It is by far the most complex thing the universe has ever produced.

You have been saying the universe creates life, creates intelligence etc. It doesn't create anything. We may be created from the same matter as the universe but we are not the universe but rather a insignificant amalgamation of elements on an insignificant planet. We could wink out of existence tomorrow with no effect on the universe.

And how can you say that the human mind is the most complex thing in the universe when we don't understand 95% of the universe?

There are limits to every physical and biological system. Denying that is plain idiocy.

And only a fool thinks he know everything. Ask any physicist if they know everything about the universe and they will tell you exactly what I just did. I know what I know but I also know that that I and indeed the entire human race don't know everything. You can't seem to grasp that concept.

Yes, but the process of creating intelligence would still exist because it is written into the laws of nature. It's not an accident that intelligence was created from the creation of space and time.

You are getting hung up on syntax and are trying to make an argument of semantics. So here is what I mean by the universe produced intelligence...

Scientific evidence tells us that the universe started out as subatomic particles and very quickly formed hydrogen and helium. This is called cosmic evolution. The hydrogen and helium formed stellar structures such as galaxies. This is called stellar evolution. The supernovas of stars created all of the elements and compounds that we see through fusion. This is called chemical evolution. All of these stages or phases had to occur before inanimate matter could make the leap to life. An event we still do not fully understand although the best understanding is that it can only occur in hot, wet conditions with an atmosphere rich in certain chemical compounds. Even with these conditions being present we do not know how these chemical compounds could fold themselves in just the correct sequence to create life capable of replicating itself. The amount of information required for life to replicate is staggering. But however life made this leap we know it had to begin from a single celled organism and evolved into evermore increasing complex life forms up to the point that beings that know and create eventually arose.

I don't need a lesson on how the universe formed. I know all that.

You are assigning a purpose to the universe. It has none.

If you had known that then you would also know that intelligence arising wasn't an accident. Intelligence was predestined to exist through the laws of nature. Biological life, consciousness are logical manifestations of the evolution of space time. They are literally built into the fabric of existence.

I am assigning purpose to existence. You are equivocating.

Predestined by who?

Nothing is predestined.

in a universe 93 Billion light years across that is 14 Billion years old there have been an unimaginable incalculable number of random events that have resulted in the state of the universe today

The laws of nature.

The formation of hydrogen and helium from subatomic particles were predestined by the laws of nature.

You see them as random, cause and effect doesn't.

The laws of nature that you are referring to did not exist before the universe so could not be responsible responsible for any predetermined destiny.

We see the laws of cause and effect from the perspective of an observer arriving well after the inception of the universe and that will be gone well before the universe ceases to be.

Since we do not know what happened before the instant the universe came to be we do not know the cause of that inception. There was no predetermination that life would evolve.

Of course the laws of nature existed before space and time. The creation of space and time followed laws. See 3 minute mark.



You don't need to know what happened before because you know that matter and energy is not eternal and cannot be the first cause. So matter and energy must have a beginning. So matter and energy must be created from nothing according to the laws of nature.

You have to know the primary cause if you are going to talk about purpose and predestination.

There can be a cause that has no purpose.

 

[ding]

The human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected to 10,000 other neurons. and probably a thousand different types of nerve cells.

And how can you say that the human mind is the most complex thing in the universe when we don't understand 95% of the universe?

Apparently I am not alone.

The Most Complicated Object in the Universe - UConn Today

UConn Health Journal: UConn Health pioneers explore new frontiers to better understand one of humankind’s perpetual mysteries.

today.uconn.edu

Foreword - Discovering the Brain - NCBI Bookshelf

The brain is the 'most complex thing in the universe'

Prof Sir Robin Murray has dedicated his 40-year career to psychiatric illnesses, particularly schizophrenia.

www.bbc.com

And they are no more correct that you are.

The fact is our little slice of the Milky Way galaxy is an infinitesimal piece of the entire universe. We have absolutely no clue what sentient beings exists in the rest of the universe.

So it is the height of arrogance to stand on this planet and look at a universe that is 93 billion light years in diameter and proclaim that your brain is the pinnacle of evolution in this unimaginably vast universe.

And all physical and biological systems have a limit and the human brain is both physical and biological.

Do you have a link that argues against mind not being the most complex thing produced by the evolution of space and time?

Can you at least offer the attributes of what it would take to be considered more complex than the mind?

You're the one who likes logic right?

Where is the logic in assuming your mind is the pinnacle of evolution in the entire universe when that universe is 93 Billion light years in diameter and 14 billion years old and we as a species have not even ventured beyond our own inner solar system and have only existed as a species for 200000 years ?

and we know that all physical and biological systems have limits but you think the human brain has no limits.

Human intelligence: have we reached the limit of knowledge?

Despite huge advances in science over the past century, our understanding of nature is still far from complete. Not only have scientists failed to find the Holy Grail of physics—unifying the very large (general relativity) with the very small (quantum mechanics) – they still don't know what the...

phys.org

Changing subjects? I will be happy to reply to your questions after you reply to the ones I asked before you asked yours.

Do you have a link that argues against mind not being the most complex thing produced by the evolution of space and time?

Can you at least offer the attributes of what it would take to be considered more complex than the mind?

I gave you a link.

Human intelligence is the product of the brain.

And are you equating the brain with the mind?

If the human brain is the most complex biological organ we know of and we do not fully understand the human brain then we are incapable of imagining the workings of a more complex brain. Just like a dog is incapable of imagining what it's like to be human.

So the link says mind is not the most complex thing produced by the universe. Can you show me the exact quote cause I must have missed it?

Yes, you can equate mind with brain. I don't see a problem with that. Just don't try an say some other mind is the most complex thing in the universe cause that's just fuckery.

So your argument is that there might be some other brain more advanced than the human brain? Same concept. Still the most complex thing produced by the universe is mind.

Can you name something other than an alien's mind that is more complex than mind?

It may be the most complicated thing we are aware of but that does not and will not ever mean it is the most complicated thing that exists or has ever existed in the universe.

You are making the faulty assumption that we know and understand everything that exists and has ever existed in the universe.

And it's not the same thing at all. You say your brain is the most complex thing that ever existed in the universe. That statement rules out any other type of brain as being more complex.

You say there is absolutely no limit to what the human brain can understand yet we know that all physical and biological systems have limits.

And I'll ask again are you equating the mind and the brain or are you referring to the mind as a product of the brain?

Tell me what the attributes would be of something that would be more complex. Consciousness is a product of the universe. What could possibly be more complex or advanced than consciousness.

I equate mind to consciousness capable of abstract thought. A human brain or an alien brain are subsets of mind capable of abstract thought. So the question I am asking is what would the attributes be - of something that is not mind - that would be more complex than mind.

You are playing word games. Consciousness is the last phase of the evolution of space and time. What could possibly be beyond consciousness. Biological life is infinitely more complex than any physical structure of inanimate matter. Consciousness is infinitely than biological life. We know this because of how the universe evolved. Each phase built upon the previous phase.

 

[ding]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

Our first allegiance is to ourselves then our families. the country is a bit further down on the list for me

There are logical reasons the sequence is God, country and family.

I don't think a belief is gods is logical.

That's because you don't have a perception of God beyond magical fairytales, bro. So of course you don't believe belief in God is logical. I wouldn't believe in God either if I had your perception of God.

Interesting,

Do I have to believe before my perception changes or do I believe after I see something that changes my perception?

I think you have to have an open mind and objectively look at all sides before arriving at objective truth on any issue.

I do have an open mind.

I just like to have some sort of empirical evidence. There have been many times I have changed my opinion when I was presented with sufficient evidence that contradicted my original stance on a subject.

The universe and everything that has transpired since it was created from nothing being hardwired to produce intelligence is the evidence.

Not really.

The absence of scientific evidence is not in itself proof of a god being the creator of the universe.

It is just as possible that we do not yet have the technology or the mental capacity to see or understand the process of the inception of the universe.

There's no absence of evidence.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God. If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept.

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

And how do you know the evidence we have regarding the inception of the universe is all the evidence there is?

And now you're bringing the spiritual into this? And we've already been over the morality and ethics argument and we do not agree so I see no need to rehash that one.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

But we don't know what happened the nanosecond before the beginning so all we know is the effect of the cause but not the cause itself.

You want to say the cause is a god. I am saying that we do not have enough information to say what caused the creation of the universe and the only thing we can see and measure are the aftereffects of the inception of the universe.

If we do not know what happened before the inflationary event we call the big bang we do not know the cause.

I am saying that the first cause cannot be matter or energy, so what is left?

We don't know.

You are assuming it was some otherworldly being.

I am not making that assumption because I have no evidence of the existence of any otherworldly beings.

Is it an assumption that the nature of intelligence is to create intelligence?

of course.

We think ourselves intelligent beings but have we created intelligence?

You like to attach characteristics to the universe because you have assigned a purpose to the universe. I don't assume the universe has a purpose.

We made smart phones. We made automation. We made PLC logic. We made AI.

I don't believe anyone would argue that we are obsessed with making smart things. Except maybe you.

Of course the universe has a purpose. It is an intelligence creating machine. You can only tell what something purpose is by its finished product. That would be intelligence for the universe. Everything that unfolded was leading to the universe becoming self aware. Despite your objection, you are a product of the universe.

Those are nothing but storage devices.

They are not intelligent in and of themselves but rather run on a set of rules and algorithms that humans have devised.

And I never said I wasn't a product of the universe.

I can be a product of a universe that has no purpose.

Right, but they simulate intelligence because man is obsessed with making smart things. Thus proving it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

You could be a product of a universe that has no purpose but that would be an astronomically incredible series of coincidences. It is much more likely that intelligence hardwired into the laws of nature for intelligence to exist than it is an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do because matter and energy follow laws of nature which in and of themselves are no things and had to exist before space and time because space and time were created according to the laws of nature.

We have not created intelligence. A smart phone isn't smart in and of itself. it can't do anything other than what we have told it to do.

And considering the size and age of the universe it is not unreasonable to think that we very well may be the results of trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random events over billions of years.

I'm not going to argue with you about this. If you don't want to believe that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence, then don't.

As for random events... I already explained this to you... If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

You are saying that we created intelligence we haven't.

We have created storage devices that work very quickly and operate on a simple binary code. That is not intelligence but you are claiming it is.

So since you think everything that has ever happened has happened for some purpose tell me what is the purpose of a single collision of 2 individual dust molecules that happened 12 billion years ago.

What part of... "I'm not going to argue with you about this. If you don't want to believe that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence, then don't" did you not understand. I've made my case.

You take what I wrote out of context. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The reason two individual dust particles collided was because they were on a collision path. So they did not just randomly collide.

You don't understand that no human creation up to this point is an intelligence. but back to your assertion that the universe and therefore everything that has ever happened in the universe has a purpose.

So then is it your contention that those 2 dust molecules were put on a collision course for some reason by some intelligent force or were they merely on that collision course because of an unknown number of other events occurring over an unknown time span? If it was the latter then it was a random event.

And how does that collision have any purpose?

No. That's not what I am saying. Try again.

If the universe has a purpose then surely everything that happens in the universe must work towards that purpose.

Or since we don't know what 95% of the universe is made of or how it interacts with any of the 5% we do know are you just imposing a purpose on the universe?

It does, but not in the way you are describing.

so what is the purpose as you describe it of a collision between 2 dust molecules 12 billion years ago?

To exist and to evolve.

and who defined that purpose? The dust? and how does a dust molecule evolve?

There is no purpose to a dust collision. It just is what it is. Just like the universe it just is. it is neither perfect nor imperfect.

Humans like to see patterns where there are none.

The laws of nature define the evolution of the universe. The purpose of the dust particles is to exist and to evolve. The reason they collided was because they were on a collision course. The dust particles exist as a part of the evolution of space and time just as you exist as part of the evolution of space and time.

The pattern is complexification and it cannot be disputed. Since space and time were created from nothing matter and energy has continued to complexify and evolve.

we obviously don't know all the "laws" of nature since we only have an understanding of about 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

And entropy is one of the things we understand. The universe will not become more and more complex. In fact it's the opposite of what will happen.

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Stars will run out of hydrogen and wink out and the universe will cool and settle at a temperature a few degrees K above absolute zero.

People throw out that we don't understand dark matter so we don't know everything argument all the time. We don't need to know everything to know the things we do know. Your understanding of entropy is flawed. Entropy can be looked at several different ways. If you want to argue that entropy prevents cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the creation of consciousness you are going to lose that argument because these are all known stages of the evolution of space and time. It is entirely possible for matter and energy to complexify while the total disorder of the universe increases because usable energy was lost to the system in the creation in the process of complexification. I can use a messy room being cleaned as an example. The room starts out in a more disorderly state. It is cleaned to a more orderly state. The cost to clean the room used energy. There are no 100% efficient processes. In every exchange some energy will be lost to the system. So that even when the room became more orderly by putting energy into cleaning it, the system lost a tiny amount of usable energy and thus added to the disorder of the universe even though the room is now in a more orderly state.

Thermodynamics and our knowledge of how space and time evolved say your belief that the opposite will happen is wrong. But keep arguing this and I will explain how space and time evolved with each step creating more and more complex things along the way.

biological life was something that happened in the universe not something caused by the universe.

And we don't know everything and knowing 5% of something isn't knowing much at all.

In fact I'll tell you that we might be incapable of the mental processes required to understand 100% of the universe. My dog will never understand algebra because her brain is physiologically incapable of the thought processes necessary for understanding algebra.

And to use your room example. When you no longer have the energy to put into the room to keep it orderly and eventually you won't therefore entropy will increase in your room and the entire universe. Entropy always wins.

You don't seem to be able to grasp that everything is the universe. Everything began the exact same way. Since that time it has merely changed form. But are you arguing that there was no cosmic evolution or stellar evolution or chemical evolution or biological evolution or evolution of consciousness? Are you arguing that hydrogen and helium is not a more advanced state than sub atomic particles? Are you arguing that stellar structures are not a more advanced state than hydrogen or helium?

I guess you will just have to go around knowing next to nothing then. I on the other hand will continue to argue that I know what I know whereas every argument you make you will have to add the caveat that you don't really know anything after you tell people what you know. Sounds kind of stupid when put that way, right?

It is because of entropy that you should have known the universe had to begin with matter and energy being created literally out of nothing.

There are no limits to what the human mind can learn. It is by far the most complex thing the universe has ever produced.

You have been saying the universe creates life, creates intelligence etc. It doesn't create anything. We may be created from the same matter as the universe but we are not the universe but rather a insignificant amalgamation of elements on an insignificant planet. We could wink out of existence tomorrow with no effect on the universe.

And how can you say that the human mind is the most complex thing in the universe when we don't understand 95% of the universe?

There are limits to every physical and biological system. Denying that is plain idiocy.

And only a fool thinks he know everything. Ask any physicist if they know everything about the universe and they will tell you exactly what I just did. I know what I know but I also know that that I and indeed the entire human race don't know everything. You can't seem to grasp that concept.

Yes, but the process of creating intelligence would still exist because it is written into the laws of nature. It's not an accident that intelligence was created from the creation of space and time.

You are getting hung up on syntax and are trying to make an argument of semantics. So here is what I mean by the universe produced intelligence...

Scientific evidence tells us that the universe started out as subatomic particles and very quickly formed hydrogen and helium. This is called cosmic evolution. The hydrogen and helium formed stellar structures such as galaxies. This is called stellar evolution. The supernovas of stars created all of the elements and compounds that we see through fusion. This is called chemical evolution. All of these stages or phases had to occur before inanimate matter could make the leap to life. An event we still do not fully understand although the best understanding is that it can only occur in hot, wet conditions with an atmosphere rich in certain chemical compounds. Even with these conditions being present we do not know how these chemical compounds could fold themselves in just the correct sequence to create life capable of replicating itself. The amount of information required for life to replicate is staggering. But however life made this leap we know it had to begin from a single celled organism and evolved into evermore increasing complex life forms up to the point that beings that know and create eventually arose.

I don't need a lesson on how the universe formed. I know all that.

You are assigning a purpose to the universe. It has none.

If you had known that then you would also know that intelligence arising wasn't an accident. Intelligence was predestined to exist through the laws of nature. Biological life, consciousness are logical manifestations of the evolution of space time. They are literally built into the fabric of existence.

I am assigning purpose to existence. You are equivocating.

Predestined by who?

Nothing is predestined.

in a universe 93 Billion light years across that is 14 Billion years old there have been an unimaginable incalculable number of random events that have resulted in the state of the universe today

The laws of nature.

The formation of hydrogen and helium from subatomic particles were predestined by the laws of nature.

You see them as random, cause and effect doesn't.

The laws of nature that you are referring to did not exist before the universe so could not be responsible responsible for any predetermined destiny.

We see the laws of cause and effect from the perspective of an observer arriving well after the inception of the universe and that will be gone well before the universe ceases to be.

Since we do not know what happened before the instant the universe came to be we do not know the cause of that inception. There was no predetermination that life would evolve.

Of course the laws of nature existed before space and time. The creation of space and time followed laws. See 3 minute mark.



You don't need to know what happened before because you know that matter and energy is not eternal and cannot be the first cause. So matter and energy must have a beginning. So matter and energy must be created from nothing according to the laws of nature.

You have to know the primary cause if you are going to talk about purpose and predestination.

There can be a cause that has no purpose.

You can only know what something is by the finished product. Therefore you can only determine the purpose until you see what was ultimately produced. In the case of the evolution of space and time, that would be consciousness. Consciousness is the pinnacle of the evolution of space and time.

~14 billion years ago space and time were created from nothing and began to expand and cool until such time consciousness arose from that creation. Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

 

[ding]

The material world not only is a manifestation of mind, the material world can only become manifest through mind.

 

[ding]

Predestined by who?

Mind. Mind created a logical material universe that logically produced beings capable of creating and knowing.

 

[Blues Man]

The human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected to 10,000 other neurons. and probably a thousand different types of nerve cells.

And how can you say that the human mind is the most complex thing in the universe when we don't understand 95% of the universe?

Apparently I am not alone.

The Most Complicated Object in the Universe - UConn Today

UConn Health Journal: UConn Health pioneers explore new frontiers to better understand one of humankind’s perpetual mysteries.

today.uconn.edu

Foreword - Discovering the Brain - NCBI Bookshelf

The brain is the 'most complex thing in the universe'

Prof Sir Robin Murray has dedicated his 40-year career to psychiatric illnesses, particularly schizophrenia.

www.bbc.com

And they are no more correct that you are.

The fact is our little slice of the Milky Way galaxy is an infinitesimal piece of the entire universe. We have absolutely no clue what sentient beings exists in the rest of the universe.

So it is the height of arrogance to stand on this planet and look at a universe that is 93 billion light years in diameter and proclaim that your brain is the pinnacle of evolution in this unimaginably vast universe.

And all physical and biological systems have a limit and the human brain is both physical and biological.

Do you have a link that argues against mind not being the most complex thing produced by the evolution of space and time?

Can you at least offer the attributes of what it would take to be considered more complex than the mind?

You're the one who likes logic right?

Where is the logic in assuming your mind is the pinnacle of evolution in the entire universe when that universe is 93 Billion light years in diameter and 14 billion years old and we as a species have not even ventured beyond our own inner solar system and have only existed as a species for 200000 years ?

and we know that all physical and biological systems have limits but you think the human brain has no limits.

Human intelligence: have we reached the limit of knowledge?

Despite huge advances in science over the past century, our understanding of nature is still far from complete. Not only have scientists failed to find the Holy Grail of physics—unifying the very large (general relativity) with the very small (quantum mechanics) – they still don't know what the...

phys.org

Changing subjects? I will be happy to reply to your questions after you reply to the ones I asked before you asked yours.

Do you have a link that argues against mind not being the most complex thing produced by the evolution of space and time?

Can you at least offer the attributes of what it would take to be considered more complex than the mind?

I gave you a link.

Human intelligence is the product of the brain.

And are you equating the brain with the mind?

If the human brain is the most complex biological organ we know of and we do not fully understand the human brain then we are incapable of imagining the workings of a more complex brain. Just like a dog is incapable of imagining what it's like to be human.

So the link says mind is not the most complex thing produced by the universe. Can you show me the exact quote cause I must have missed it?

Yes, you can equate mind with brain. I don't see a problem with that. Just don't try an say some other mind is the most complex thing in the universe cause that's just fuckery.

So your argument is that there might be some other brain more advanced than the human brain? Same concept. Still the most complex thing produced by the universe is mind.

Can you name something other than an alien's mind that is more complex than mind?

It may be the most complicated thing we are aware of but that does not and will not ever mean it is the most complicated thing that exists or has ever existed in the universe.

You are making the faulty assumption that we know and understand everything that exists and has ever existed in the universe.

And it's not the same thing at all. You say your brain is the most complex thing that ever existed in the universe. That statement rules out any other type of brain as being more complex.

You say there is absolutely no limit to what the human brain can understand yet we know that all physical and biological systems have limits.

And I'll ask again are you equating the mind and the brain or are you referring to the mind as a product of the brain?

Tell me what the attributes would be of something that would be more complex. Consciousness is a product of the universe. What could possibly be more complex or advanced than consciousness.

I equate mind to consciousness capable of abstract thought. A human brain or an alien brain are subsets of mind capable of abstract thought. So the question I am asking is what would the attributes be - of something that is not mind - that would be more complex than mind.

You are playing word games. Consciousness is the last phase of the evolution of space and time. What could possibly be beyond consciousness. Biological life is infinitely more complex than any physical structure of inanimate matter. Consciousness is infinitely than biological life. We know this because of how the universe evolved. Each phase built upon the previous phase.

Consciousness is a product of the brain.

And just because something is made from the materials that exist in the universe does not mean the universe consciously used those materials to make anything with them.

And I never denied that biological life wasn't complex.

My issue is with your declaration that the human brain is the single most complex structure that has ever existed in the universe.

There is absolutely no way you can say that with any measure of certainty since the only biological beings that have brains that we know of are the ones that exist on this single planet in this single solar system out of all the planets and solar systems that ever have existed or exist now in a universe that is 14 billion years old and has a diameter or 93 billion light years.

 

[Blues Man]

The material world not only is a manifestation of mind, the material world can only become manifest through mind.

no because the material world will be here long after humans are extinct.

The universe is not a mind and even if it was it wouldn't notice us at all

 

[ding]

The human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected to 10,000 other neurons. and probably a thousand different types of nerve cells.

And how can you say that the human mind is the most complex thing in the universe when we don't understand 95% of the universe?

Apparently I am not alone.

The Most Complicated Object in the Universe - UConn Today

UConn Health Journal: UConn Health pioneers explore new frontiers to better understand one of humankind’s perpetual mysteries.

today.uconn.edu

Foreword - Discovering the Brain - NCBI Bookshelf

The brain is the 'most complex thing in the universe'

Prof Sir Robin Murray has dedicated his 40-year career to psychiatric illnesses, particularly schizophrenia.

www.bbc.com

And they are no more correct that you are.

The fact is our little slice of the Milky Way galaxy is an infinitesimal piece of the entire universe. We have absolutely no clue what sentient beings exists in the rest of the universe.

So it is the height of arrogance to stand on this planet and look at a universe that is 93 billion light years in diameter and proclaim that your brain is the pinnacle of evolution in this unimaginably vast universe.

And all physical and biological systems have a limit and the human brain is both physical and biological.

Do you have a link that argues against mind not being the most complex thing produced by the evolution of space and time?

Can you at least offer the attributes of what it would take to be considered more complex than the mind?

You're the one who likes logic right?

Where is the logic in assuming your mind is the pinnacle of evolution in the entire universe when that universe is 93 Billion light years in diameter and 14 billion years old and we as a species have not even ventured beyond our own inner solar system and have only existed as a species for 200000 years ?

and we know that all physical and biological systems have limits but you think the human brain has no limits.

Human intelligence: have we reached the limit of knowledge?

Despite huge advances in science over the past century, our understanding of nature is still far from complete. Not only have scientists failed to find the Holy Grail of physics—unifying the very large (general relativity) with the very small (quantum mechanics) – they still don't know what the...

phys.org

Changing subjects? I will be happy to reply to your questions after you reply to the ones I asked before you asked yours.

Do you have a link that argues against mind not being the most complex thing produced by the evolution of space and time?

Can you at least offer the attributes of what it would take to be considered more complex than the mind?

I gave you a link.

Human intelligence is the product of the brain.

And are you equating the brain with the mind?

If the human brain is the most complex biological organ we know of and we do not fully understand the human brain then we are incapable of imagining the workings of a more complex brain. Just like a dog is incapable of imagining what it's like to be human.

So the link says mind is not the most complex thing produced by the universe. Can you show me the exact quote cause I must have missed it?

Yes, you can equate mind with brain. I don't see a problem with that. Just don't try an say some other mind is the most complex thing in the universe cause that's just fuckery.

So your argument is that there might be some other brain more advanced than the human brain? Same concept. Still the most complex thing produced by the universe is mind.

Can you name something other than an alien's mind that is more complex than mind?

It may be the most complicated thing we are aware of but that does not and will not ever mean it is the most complicated thing that exists or has ever existed in the universe.

You are making the faulty assumption that we know and understand everything that exists and has ever existed in the universe.

And it's not the same thing at all. You say your brain is the most complex thing that ever existed in the universe. That statement rules out any other type of brain as being more complex.

You say there is absolutely no limit to what the human brain can understand yet we know that all physical and biological systems have limits.

And I'll ask again are you equating the mind and the brain or are you referring to the mind as a product of the brain?

Tell me what the attributes would be of something that would be more complex. Consciousness is a product of the universe. What could possibly be more complex or advanced than consciousness.

I equate mind to consciousness capable of abstract thought. A human brain or an alien brain are subsets of mind capable of abstract thought. So the question I am asking is what would the attributes be - of something that is not mind - that would be more complex than mind.

You are playing word games. Consciousness is the last phase of the evolution of space and time. What could possibly be beyond consciousness. Biological life is infinitely more complex than any physical structure of inanimate matter. Consciousness is infinitely than biological life. We know this because of how the universe evolved. Each phase built upon the previous phase.

Consciousness is a product of the brain.

And just because something is made from the materials that exist in the universe does not mean the universe consciously used those materials to make anything with them.

And I never denied that biological life wasn't complex.

My issue is with your declaration that the human brain is the single most complex structure that has ever existed in the universe.

There is absolutely no way you can say that with any measure of certainty since the only biological beings that have brains that we know of are the ones that exist on this single planet in this single solar system out of all the planets and solar systems that ever have existed or exist now in a universe that is 14 billion years old and has a diameter or 93 billion light years.

Other than the conscious beings which exist in the universe, the universe itself does not appear to be conscious. So the universe most likely did not consciously do anything. Life and consciousness were produced through the evolution of space and time which are hardwired into the laws of nature and are a part of the fabric of existence. The universe could have been created such that life and consciousness were never possible to exist.

I am not saying the human mind is the single most complex structure that has ever existed in the universe. I am saying that consciousness is. Consciousness is an artifact of a mind that knows. The only example we have of that are humans but I am talking about the phenomena of consciousness.

 

[ding]

The material world not only is a manifestation of mind, the material world can only become manifest through mind.

no because the material world will be here long after humans are extinct.

The universe is not a mind and even if it was it wouldn't notice us at all

And when that happens there will nothing to make the universe manifest.

It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .” George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

As near as we can tell the universe is not a mind but it seems the universe may work like a human brain.

How the Universe resembles a human brain

A new study found similarities between the human brain and the cosmic network of galaxies.

bigthink.com

The Quantitative Comparison Between the Neuronal Network and the Cosmic Web

We investigate the similarities between two of the most challenging and complex systems in Nature: the network of neuronal cells in the human brain, and the cosmic network of galaxies. We explore the structural, morphological, network properties and the memory capacity of these two fascinating...

www.frontiersin.org

 

[ding]

And I never denied that biological life wasn't complex.

That's good. A simple single living cell of life is infinitely more complex than any structure of inanimate matter. A conscious being is infinitely more complex than a simple single living cell.

 

[Blues Man]

The human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected to 10,000 other neurons. and probably a thousand different types of nerve cells.

And how can you say that the human mind is the most complex thing in the universe when we don't understand 95% of the universe?

Apparently I am not alone.

The Most Complicated Object in the Universe - UConn Today

UConn Health Journal: UConn Health pioneers explore new frontiers to better understand one of humankind’s perpetual mysteries.

today.uconn.edu

Foreword - Discovering the Brain - NCBI Bookshelf

The brain is the 'most complex thing in the universe'

Prof Sir Robin Murray has dedicated his 40-year career to psychiatric illnesses, particularly schizophrenia.

www.bbc.com

And they are no more correct that you are.

The fact is our little slice of the Milky Way galaxy is an infinitesimal piece of the entire universe. We have absolutely no clue what sentient beings exists in the rest of the universe.

So it is the height of arrogance to stand on this planet and look at a universe that is 93 billion light years in diameter and proclaim that your brain is the pinnacle of evolution in this unimaginably vast universe.

And all physical and biological systems have a limit and the human brain is both physical and biological.

Do you have a link that argues against mind not being the most complex thing produced by the evolution of space and time?

Can you at least offer the attributes of what it would take to be considered more complex than the mind?

You're the one who likes logic right?

Where is the logic in assuming your mind is the pinnacle of evolution in the entire universe when that universe is 93 Billion light years in diameter and 14 billion years old and we as a species have not even ventured beyond our own inner solar system and have only existed as a species for 200000 years ?

and we know that all physical and biological systems have limits but you think the human brain has no limits.

Human intelligence: have we reached the limit of knowledge?

Despite huge advances in science over the past century, our understanding of nature is still far from complete. Not only have scientists failed to find the Holy Grail of physics—unifying the very large (general relativity) with the very small (quantum mechanics) – they still don't know what the...

phys.org

Changing subjects? I will be happy to reply to your questions after you reply to the ones I asked before you asked yours.

Do you have a link that argues against mind not being the most complex thing produced by the evolution of space and time?

Can you at least offer the attributes of what it would take to be considered more complex than the mind?

I gave you a link.

Human intelligence is the product of the brain.

And are you equating the brain with the mind?

If the human brain is the most complex biological organ we know of and we do not fully understand the human brain then we are incapable of imagining the workings of a more complex brain. Just like a dog is incapable of imagining what it's like to be human.

So the link says mind is not the most complex thing produced by the universe. Can you show me the exact quote cause I must have missed it?

Yes, you can equate mind with brain. I don't see a problem with that. Just don't try an say some other mind is the most complex thing in the universe cause that's just fuckery.

So your argument is that there might be some other brain more advanced than the human brain? Same concept. Still the most complex thing produced by the universe is mind.

Can you name something other than an alien's mind that is more complex than mind?

It may be the most complicated thing we are aware of but that does not and will not ever mean it is the most complicated thing that exists or has ever existed in the universe.

You are making the faulty assumption that we know and understand everything that exists and has ever existed in the universe.

And it's not the same thing at all. You say your brain is the most complex thing that ever existed in the universe. That statement rules out any other type of brain as being more complex.

You say there is absolutely no limit to what the human brain can understand yet we know that all physical and biological systems have limits.

And I'll ask again are you equating the mind and the brain or are you referring to the mind as a product of the brain?

Tell me what the attributes would be of something that would be more complex. Consciousness is a product of the universe. What could possibly be more complex or advanced than consciousness.

I equate mind to consciousness capable of abstract thought. A human brain or an alien brain are subsets of mind capable of abstract thought. So the question I am asking is what would the attributes be - of something that is not mind - that would be more complex than mind.

You are playing word games. Consciousness is the last phase of the evolution of space and time. What could possibly be beyond consciousness. Biological life is infinitely more complex than any physical structure of inanimate matter. Consciousness is infinitely than biological life. We know this because of how the universe evolved. Each phase built upon the previous phase.

Consciousness is a product of the brain.

And just because something is made from the materials that exist in the universe does not mean the universe consciously used those materials to make anything with them.

And I never denied that biological life wasn't complex.

My issue is with your declaration that the human brain is the single most complex structure that has ever existed in the universe.

There is absolutely no way you can say that with any measure of certainty since the only biological beings that have brains that we know of are the ones that exist on this single planet in this single solar system out of all the planets and solar systems that ever have existed or exist now in a universe that is 14 billion years old and has a diameter or 93 billion light years.

Other than the conscious beings which exist in the universe, the universe itself does not appear to be conscious. So the universe most likely did not consciously do anything. Life and consciousness were produced through the evolution of space and time which are hardwired into the laws of nature and are a part of the fabric of existence. The universe could have been created such that life and consciousness were never possible to exist.

I am not saying the human mind is the single most complex structure that has ever existed in the universe. I am saying that consciousness is. Consciousness is an artifact of a mind that knows. The only example we have of that are humans but I am talking about the phenomena of consciousness.

so now you're changing your terms.

you have been saying all along that the human mind is the most complex thing in the universe now consciousness is the most complex thing.