If there is a God...

[Montrovant]

My point is not to promote any idea about the beginning of the universe, but merely to point out that my ignorance (and, most likely, humanity's ignorance) leaves open the possibility that our current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. It means that while it may seem likely that the matter and energy which of which I am made were created at the beginning of the universe, that might not be the case. I try not to make declarative statements about these sorts of questions, although I do fail in that from time to time.

You could say the exact same thing about the origin of intelligence. That your ignorance leaves open the possibility that your current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. Which means that while it may seem likely that intelligence was a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, that might not be the case. That intelligence, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, 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.

My point here is that if you profess ignorance about things you have good reason to believe in - such as the universe having a beginning and the Laws of Nature - why aren't you professing ignorance about things you have less certainty about?

Do I have good reason to believe the universe had a beginning? Someone posted an article about a model created which would indicate the universe had no beginning, using some sort of "quantum correction terms." Should I believe that, or not? I honestly have no idea. I simply do not know the science behind it nearly well enough to make any sort of determination.

As to the origin of intelligence, where have I claimed not to be ignorant about that? I don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence. What I have said, and continue to say, is that the mere existence of intelligence (or of life, or of the universe itself) is poor evidence for the existence of a god or gods. If I do not know how something came into being, how can I say whether it required intelligence to happen?

You are correct, in that you don't know enough about the origin of the universe to have an opinion on it.

And since you admitted that you don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence, you are ignorant on that as well, right? When you say you don't know something as you just did you are professing ignorance about it. So my point still stands. You are happy to plea ignorance on the origin of the universe which is something we know more about, yet willing to comment on the origin of intelligence, which is something you know less about. To say that the mere presence of intelligence is a poor reason for the existence of a god or gods, is wrong on two counts. A poor reason would be lack of intelligence. A good reason would be intelligence. And you are wrong that my argument is premised merely on the presence of intelligence.

What, specifically, are you basing the argument that intelligence is a good evidence for the existence of a god on?

That I do not know how intelligence arose does not mean I cannot comment on the lack of evidence or logic in a claim that the existence of intelligence requires another intelligence to have created it.

What evidence are you basing your belief that intelligence does not necessarily come from intelligence?

My evidence is that we create intelligence in our creations: PLC logic, smart phones, any control system anywhere, smart cars, AI, do I need to go on? Reason and experience tell us that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. And you think this is flawed logic?

If you are ignorant about how intelligence arose then how would you know the logic is poor? I believe that intelligence is the purpose of space and time. That everything unfolded so that intelligence would eventually emerge because intelligence was written into the laws of nature for the express purpose of creating intelligence.

Can you name something more advanced or complicated than intelligence?

My evidence that intelligence does not necessarily come from intelligence is, in fact, the lack of evidence involved in how human intelligence came to be. As far as I know, we have not yet created a true artificial intelligence. There is no sentient AI. If you are going to say that your various examples are examples of intelligence, then reason and experience tell us that it is not in the nature of intelligence to create intelligence, as humanity is the only intelligence we know of to have attempted to do so. If those other things you listed are examples of intelligence, they should also be attempting to create another intelligence.

I don't think that I am alone in my ignorance of how intelligence arose. I think that is a trait of our species. Others know more or less, but I don't think anyone is close to having irrefutable proof. I would argue that the best reason and experience can tell us is that intelligence arose like any other biological trait, through evolution over time. There has been direct observation of changes occurring in life forms over time, whereas there has been no observation of one intelligence creating an intelligent life form.

I have been completely willing to admit my lack of knowledge, and will continue to do so. If you have some sort of evidence that intelligence must come from another intelligence, I am perfectly happy to hear it. Examples of intelligence arising would be great, specifically biological intelligence. However, the argument that "since humanity does it, it must be what intelligent beings do" is not a particularly good argument. It ignores other species which might be considered intelligent, and it takes a single example of intelligent life and extrapolates from that what all intelligent life would do.

Not knowing how intelligence arose does not preclude me from finding flaws in the logic of an opinion about how intelligence arose. I don't know much about marine biology, but if someone were to tell me that there are 15 species of fish that live within a certain lake, therefore Titanic was an excellent movie, I can still refute the logic. As I said, I'm happy to hear any evidence you care to present as to why intelligence must arise from another intelligence, but so far as I've read to this point, you have not really provided any compelling evidence.

 

[Montrovant]

What a condescending fool you are: "you don't know enough about the origin of the universe to have an opinion on it". Anyone can have an opinion on anything, regardless of knowledge, you've proved that already many times over on this board.

Those were his words, Taz.

At least he was honest about that.

And you agreed with him,

Yes, I agreed with him/her that he/she did not have enough knowledge to discuss the origin of space and time.

Of course, that's not actually what I said. What I said was that I don't know enough about the possible origin of space and time to make a determination about it; in other words, I have no firm opinion on how space and time came about. That in no way means I cannot discuss it.

You just can't discuss it intelligently. No shame in that.

I can. I've studied it.

Even that isn't true. I can't discuss it knowledgeably.

 

[ding]

Logic dictates that if space and time were created for a reason then that reason could be found in what the universe ultimately produced. The ultimate creation of the universe is intelligence.

 

[Montrovant]

Logic dictates that if space and time were created for a reason then that reason could be found in what the universe ultimately produced. The ultimate creation of the universe is intelligence.

I agree with your first statement. The second is entirely subjective, though.

The universe could be said to have created a whole lot of things, most of which we probably know nothing about. Why assume intelligence is the "ultimate creation of the universe"?

 

[ding]

My evidence that intelligence does not necessarily come from intelligence is, in fact, the lack of evidence involved in how human intelligence came to be.

It's called evolution. First we had to leave the sea because ain't no one building a technological civilization under the sea. Then we had to develop locomotion because that is a requirement for intelligence to emerge. It seems that Nature has determined that is best done by quadrapeds which is why we have four limbs. Then we needed to be warm blood so that we could evolve a larger central nervous systems. BTW, did you know that the central nervous system of every single mammal species has gotten larger as it has evolved. That's just intelligence trying to get out. But the big break through was opposable thumbs as that allowed for spatial intelligence to develop. That was when our central nervous system exploded and intelligence emerged.

That's how it came to be. There is no lack of knowledge on this.

 

[ding]

As far as I know, we have not yet created a true artificial intelligence. There is no sentient AI. If you are going to say that your various examples are examples of intelligence, then reason and experience tell us that it is not in the nature of intelligence to create intelligence, as humanity is the only intelligence we know of to have attempted to do so.

Doesn't matter. Are you literally arguing that humans do not program logic into their creations? Seriously?

 

[ding]

Those were his words, Taz.

At least he was honest about that.

And you agreed with him,

Yes, I agreed with him/her that he/she did not have enough knowledge to discuss the origin of space and time.

Of course, that's not actually what I said. What I said was that I don't know enough about the possible origin of space and time to make a determination about it; in other words, I have no firm opinion on how space and time came about. That in no way means I cannot discuss it.

You just can't discuss it intelligently. No shame in that.

I can. I've studied it.

Even that isn't true. I can't discuss it knowledgeably.

Same difference.

 

[ding]

Logic dictates that if space and time were created for a reason then that reason could be found in what the universe ultimately produced. The ultimate creation of the universe is intelligence.

I agree with your first statement. The second is entirely subjective, though.

The universe could be said to have created a whole lot of things, most of which we probably know nothing about. Why assume intelligence is the "ultimate creation of the universe"?

Because consciousness is the pinnacle of creation. Nothing even comes close in complexity. Nothing has evolved beyond it.

 

[Taz]

What a condescending fool you are: "you don't know enough about the origin of the universe to have an opinion on it". Anyone can have an opinion on anything, regardless of knowledge, you've proved that already many times over on this board.

Those were his words, Taz.

At least he was honest about that.

And you agreed with him,

Yes, I agreed with him/her that he/she did not have enough knowledge to discuss the origin of space and time.

Of course, that's not actually what I said. What I said was that I don't know enough about the possible origin of space and time to make a determination about it; in other words, I have no firm opinion on how space and time came about. That in no way means I cannot discuss it.

You just can't discuss it intelligently. No shame in that.

I can. I've studied it.

“You just can't discuss it intelligently”
You’re the dumbest guy here, a complete clown. You’re the Babe Ruth of stupidity and can hit a stupid homer at will. It’s really the only thing you’ve ever proven here.

 

[LittleNipper]

And of course you have to get to, 'which god' are you talking about. There are thousands worshiped by humans currently. And each person sees their god as 'the' god.

The one GOD that shames all the others is the best choice.

 

[ding]

Those were his words, Taz.

At least he was honest about that.

And you agreed with him,

Yes, I agreed with him/her that he/she did not have enough knowledge to discuss the origin of space and time.

Of course, that's not actually what I said. What I said was that I don't know enough about the possible origin of space and time to make a determination about it; in other words, I have no firm opinion on how space and time came about. That in no way means I cannot discuss it.

You just can't discuss it intelligently. No shame in that.

I can. I've studied it.

“You just can't discuss it intelligently”
You’re the dumbest guy here, a complete clown. You’re the Babe Ruth of stupidity and can hit a stupid homer at will. It’s really the only thing you’ve ever proven here.

Do you feel better?

Are you doing God's work, Taz?

 

[Montrovant]

My evidence that intelligence does not necessarily come from intelligence is, in fact, the lack of evidence involved in how human intelligence came to be.

It's called evolution. First we had to leave the sea because ain't no one building a technological civilization under the sea. Then we had to develop locomotion because that is a requirement for intelligence to emerge. It seems that Nature has determined that is best done by quadrapeds which is why we have four limbs. Then we needed to be warm blood so that we could evolve a larger central nervous systems. BTW, did you know that the central nervous system of every single mammal species has gotten larger as it has evolved. That's just intelligence trying to get out. But the big break through was opposable thumbs as that allowed for spatial intelligence to develop. That was when our central nervous system exploded and intelligence emerged.

That's how it came to be. There is no lack of knowledge on this.

I was speaking more in terms of the origin of life; if an intelligence purposely created humanity to be intelligent, then our intelligence could be said to arise from that other intelligence, whether or not evolution is involved.

If you just want to speak in evolutionary terms, then I don't see how your argument that intelligence must rise from intelligence holds water. Or are you also arguing that there is evidence that evolution arose from an intelligence?

 

[Montrovant]

Logic dictates that if space and time were created for a reason then that reason could be found in what the universe ultimately produced. The ultimate creation of the universe is intelligence.

I agree with your first statement. The second is entirely subjective, though.

The universe could be said to have created a whole lot of things, most of which we probably know nothing about. Why assume intelligence is the "ultimate creation of the universe"?

Because consciousness is the pinnacle of creation. Nothing even comes close in complexity. Nothing has evolved beyond it.

That is a subjective and, frankly, pretty arrogant statement. How do you know that nothing in the universe comes close to consciousness in complexity, or that nothing has evolved beyond it?

You'd be more accurate to say that consciousness is the pinnacle of creation on Earth....and even then, that is still a subjective statement. There is no real way to know if an intelligence that created space and time would agree with that, or if consciousness was an intentional product of the universe, or if consciousness would even be considered a positive product of the universe.

Saying that consciousness is the pinnacle of creation, that intelligence is the ultimate creation of the universe, and therefore the reason the universe was created, is in effect saying that you know the mind of god.

 

[ding]

My evidence that intelligence does not necessarily come from intelligence is, in fact, the lack of evidence involved in how human intelligence came to be.

It's called evolution. First we had to leave the sea because ain't no one building a technological civilization under the sea. Then we had to develop locomotion because that is a requirement for intelligence to emerge. It seems that Nature has determined that is best done by quadrapeds which is why we have four limbs. Then we needed to be warm blood so that we could evolve a larger central nervous systems. BTW, did you know that the central nervous system of every single mammal species has gotten larger as it has evolved. That's just intelligence trying to get out. But the big break through was opposable thumbs as that allowed for spatial intelligence to develop. That was when our central nervous system exploded and intelligence emerged.

That's how it came to be. There is no lack of knowledge on this.

I was speaking more in terms of the origin of life; if an intelligence purposely created humanity to be intelligent, then our intelligence could be said to arise from that other intelligence, whether or not evolution is involved.

If you just want to speak in evolutionary terms, then I don't see how your argument that intelligence must rise from intelligence holds water. Or are you also arguing that there is evidence that evolution arose from an intelligence?

No one knows how life made the leap from inorganic matter. But however it made it, the laws of nature are such that given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create were predestined to arise.

Why? Because it was written into the Laws of Nature. Laws which existed before space and time itself. It wasn't an accident.

You do realize that there are natural laws which govern biological life, right?

 

[ding]

Logic dictates that if space and time were created for a reason then that reason could be found in what the universe ultimately produced. The ultimate creation of the universe is intelligence.

I agree with your first statement. The second is entirely subjective, though.

The universe could be said to have created a whole lot of things, most of which we probably know nothing about. Why assume intelligence is the "ultimate creation of the universe"?

Because consciousness is the pinnacle of creation. Nothing even comes close in complexity. Nothing has evolved beyond it.

That is a subjective and, frankly, pretty arrogant statement. How do you know that nothing in the universe comes close to consciousness in complexity, or that nothing has evolved beyond it?

You'd be more accurate to say that consciousness is the pinnacle of creation on Earth....and even then, that is still a subjective statement. There is no real way to know if an intelligence that created space and time would agree with that, or if consciousness was an intentional product of the universe, or if consciousness would even be considered a positive product of the universe.

Saying that consciousness is the pinnacle of creation, that intelligence is the ultimate creation of the universe, and therefore the reason the universe was created, is in effect saying that you know the mind of god.

Name something? You can't. That's how I know.

 

[ding]

Evolution is when anything moves from a less advanced state to a more advanced state and applies to everything in the universe.

The Stages of the Evolution of Matter

1. Cosmic evolution: the formation of hydrogen and helium from sub atomic particles in the very early universe.

2. Stellar evolution: the formation of structures in the early universe from hydrogen and helium.

3. Chemical evolution: the ongoing generation of all the elements from supernovas and all subsequent chemical reactions.

4. Biological evolution: the leap to life from inorganic material and it's evolution towards beings that know and create.

5. Evolution of consciousness: the most complex thing that the universe has created. Who knows where its evolution will take us.

 

[Montrovant]

Logic dictates that if space and time were created for a reason then that reason could be found in what the universe ultimately produced. The ultimate creation of the universe is intelligence.

I agree with your first statement. The second is entirely subjective, though.

The universe could be said to have created a whole lot of things, most of which we probably know nothing about. Why assume intelligence is the "ultimate creation of the universe"?

Because consciousness is the pinnacle of creation. Nothing even comes close in complexity. Nothing has evolved beyond it.

That is a subjective and, frankly, pretty arrogant statement. How do you know that nothing in the universe comes close to consciousness in complexity, or that nothing has evolved beyond it?

You'd be more accurate to say that consciousness is the pinnacle of creation on Earth....and even then, that is still a subjective statement. There is no real way to know if an intelligence that created space and time would agree with that, or if consciousness was an intentional product of the universe, or if consciousness would even be considered a positive product of the universe.

Saying that consciousness is the pinnacle of creation, that intelligence is the ultimate creation of the universe, and therefore the reason the universe was created, is in effect saying that you know the mind of god.

Name something? You can't. That's how I know.

That's ridiculous.

First, there is no reason someone must agree that complexity is the definition to use for the pinnacle of creations.

Second, that you, or I, or all of humanity does not know of something more complex than consciousness, in no way means such a thing does not exist. Do you think humanity knows everything there is to know about the universe?

There are other points that could be made, but those two should be more than enough.

 

[Jackson]

I just read an article from NASA which is partially the inspiration behind this topic:
WMAP- Fate of the Universe
It would seem to suggest that given enough time, all life in the known universe will most likely essentially “freeze” to death.
Now as a preface to this topic I suppose I should set some “assumptions” that I’m making. Let’s say that billions or more years ago, some supremely powerful conscious being created all the particles that exist along with all the rules that govern them; and that being is God.

Given all the messed up stuff that can happen to people, and has happened to people throughout history, and that existence will probably fade into frozen nothingness eventually; I’m having a hard time believing that “God” actually “cares” about us that much. Now I know that most people are good, but I think that’s mostly because it’s evolutionarily advantageous to be “good”. I think I have an innate empathy and conscientiousness for others because that is a trait that fosters cooperation; and human cooperation is a competitive advantage. Simply survival of the fittest.

So I guess I’m going to pose this question to you all: If there is a God (as outlined above) is there any evidence it really cares about you or my well being at a personal level?

There is a God and there is also free will.

 

[Montrovant]

Evolution is when anything moves from a less advanced state to a more advanced state and applies to everything in the universe.

The Stages of the Evolution of Matter

1. Cosmic evolution: the formation of hydrogen and helium from sub atomic particles in the very early universe.

2. Stellar evolution: the formation of structures in the early universe from hydrogen and helium.

3. Chemical evolution: the ongoing generation of all the elements from supernovas and all subsequent chemical reactions.

4. Biological evolution: the leap to life from inorganic material and it's evolution towards beings that know and create.

5. Evolution of consciousness: the most complex thing that the universe has created. Who knows where its evolution will take us.

You certainly do have a high opinion about your knowledge of the universe.

Evolution does not "move from a less advanced state to a more advanced state," at least not biological evolution. It is not about advancement, just survival ability. If that involves simplification, that can happen, too. For example, snakes could be said to have become less advanced by losing their legs through evolution. Biological evolution is about the survival of those traits which best allow a species to survive and reproduce.

 

[Montrovant]

My evidence that intelligence does not necessarily come from intelligence is, in fact, the lack of evidence involved in how human intelligence came to be.

It's called evolution. First we had to leave the sea because ain't no one building a technological civilization under the sea. Then we had to develop locomotion because that is a requirement for intelligence to emerge. It seems that Nature has determined that is best done by quadrapeds which is why we have four limbs. Then we needed to be warm blood so that we could evolve a larger central nervous systems. BTW, did you know that the central nervous system of every single mammal species has gotten larger as it has evolved. That's just intelligence trying to get out. But the big break through was opposable thumbs as that allowed for spatial intelligence to develop. That was when our central nervous system exploded and intelligence emerged.

That's how it came to be. There is no lack of knowledge on this.

I was speaking more in terms of the origin of life; if an intelligence purposely created humanity to be intelligent, then our intelligence could be said to arise from that other intelligence, whether or not evolution is involved.

If you just want to speak in evolutionary terms, then I don't see how your argument that intelligence must rise from intelligence holds water. Or are you also arguing that there is evidence that evolution arose from an intelligence?

No one knows how life made the leap from inorganic matter. But however it made it, the laws of nature are such that given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create were predestined to arise.

Why? Because it was written into the Laws of Nature. Laws which existed before space and time itself. It wasn't an accident.

You do realize that there are natural laws which govern biological life, right?

The laws of nature existed before space and time? What? The laws of nature existed before nature?

And what, specifically, are the laws of nature that make intelligence "predestined to arise"?