Zone1 No Wonder Why I Had Doubts In God's Existence Before

[ding]

All you did was list things we as mere humans with our limited intelligence cannot explain and then you said a god did it.

That ain't evidence.

No. I analyzed the creation and evolution of space and time for intentionality. Which is more than you have done.

And it most certainly is evidence.

 

[Blues Man]

No. I analyzed the creation and evolution of space and time for intentionality. Which is more than you have done.

And it most certainly is evidence.

No you really didn't.

All you did was cut and paste the measurements that have been taken and phenomena that has been observed and theorized on then you said my god did that.

The god theory is just that a theory.

If it was unequivocally proven then faith in a god would be rendered obsolete.

 

[ding]

No you really didn't.

All you did was cut and paste the measurements that have been taken and phenomena that has been observed and theorized on then you said my god did that.

The god theory is just that a theory.

If it was unequivocally proven then faith in a god would be rendered obsolete.

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. George Wald​

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 Thermodynamics. 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 her tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take more seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

All I 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 you 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 you 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.

 

[ding]

So yeah, there's plenty of indirect evidence that can be studied. Unless of course one is an intellectually dead atheist who has absolutely no evidence or logic for his intellectually dead end beliefs.

 

[Blues Man]

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. George Wald​

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 Thermodynamics. 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 her tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take more seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

All I 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 you 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 you 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.

The universe has no purpose never did never will.

And you bas all this babble on one assumption that something called "spirit" actually exists.

The very same arguments could be made that the universe is nothing but a computer program running on a machine on an alien world.

 

[ding]

The universe has no purpose never did never will.

And you bas all this babble on one assumption that something called "spirit" actually exists.

The very same arguments could be made that the universe is nothing but a computer program running on a machine on an alien world.

I just explicitly described the evidence and reasoning for my belief. You have not. All you have provided is a contradiction with no supporting evidence.

 

[Blues Man]

I just explicitly described the evidence and reasoning for my belief. You have not. All you have provided is a contradiction with no supporting evidence.

View attachment 857958

Evidence for your belief is based on something you call "spirit" whatever that is.

You made up these definitions of things and attribute some purpose to the universe when it can be argued that there is no purpose to the universe.

All your arguments are based on your assumptions and inference that some god made the universe for a specific purpose and that purpose was to make you.

You are basing all this on the paltry human knowledge of 5% of all the matter and energy in the known universe and some Iron age religious text

 

[ding]

Evidence for your belief is based on something you call "spirit" whatever that is.

You made up these definitions of things and attribute some purpose to the universe when it can be argued that there is no purpose to the universe.

All your arguments are based on your assumptions and inference that some god made the universe for a specific purpose and that purpose was to make you.

You are basing all this on the paltry human knowledge of 5% of all the matter and energy in the known universe and some Iron age religious text

Still no evidence for your beliefs. All you have provided is a contradiction with no supporting evidence.

 

[ding]

The universe has no purpose never did never will.

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.

 

[Blues Man]

Still no evidence for your beliefs. All you have provided is a contradiction with no supporting evidence.

And what exactly are my beliefs?

I'm the one saying we don't really know how the universe came to be. You might be right you might be wrong but that latter is something you are incapable of even considering isn't it?

You're just illustrating the arrogance of humanity because you actually believe you can understand everything in the universe and that human intelligence has no limits and you will make up an answer to a mystery just because you can't stand the fact that you don't know and might not ever know something.

 

[ding]

And you bas all this babble on one assumption that something called "spirit" actually exists.

The presence of matter/energy literally creates space and time. So whatever exists outside of space and time cannot be matter or energy. Therefore, it must be no thing. Spirit is no thing. Laws of nature are no thing. Information is no thing. The universe is filled with examples of the incorporeal. So it is not a huge leap in logic to believe what exists outside of space and time must be no thing or spirit. It's the logical conclusion.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Nope.

We know how particles react and behave we do not know that there was some "spirit" whatever that is that wrote all these laws first then made things to fit them

And don't forget all these laws that you say we know and understand only work for 5% of all the matter end energy we know exists in the universe and there may be even more matter and energy that we have no idea of.

 

[Blues Man]

Nope.

We know how particles react and behave w do not know that there was some "spirit" whatever that is that wrote all these laws first then made things to fit them

And grow up and stop the all CAPS shit will ya?

 

[ding]

And what exactly are my beliefs?

I'm the one saying we don't really know how the universe came to be.

Your beliefs are that the universe was not created intentionally.

And since you claim you don't know what created the universe you can't say you know I am wrong because you have already admitted you don't know.

 

[ding]

You might be right you might be wrong

You are contradicting yourself now. If you say I am wrong then you can't say I might be right. Which is it?

 

[Blues Man]

Your beliefs are that the universe was not created intentionally.

And since you claim you don't know what created the universe you can't say you know I am wrong because you have already admitted you don't know.

Really?

I just said I don't know how the universe came into being.

Neither do you

 

[ding]

You might be right you might be wrong but that latter is something you are incapable of even considering isn't it?

I am constantly testing my beliefs. What evidence would you like for me to consider that you believe might challenge my belief?

 

[Blues Man]

You are contradicting yourself now. If you say I am wrong then you can't say I might be right. Which is it?

What does it mean to you when I say "We don't really know how the universe came to be"?

All you have is a theory and until you produce this "Spirit" thing , whatever that is and prove that exists then your theory is just that.

I'm humble enough to realize that the 5% of the universe we have a working knowledge of is hardly the basis to draw such grand conclusions that you seem to think are the single 100% correct and irrefutable answers to the existence of the universe.

 

[Blues Man]

I am constantly testing my beliefs. What evidence would you like for me to consider that you believe might challenge my belief?

Why don't you define quantify and publish all the laws that govern the 95% of the matter and energy in the universe that we believe is out there and then explain how the interaction of that 95% with the 5% we do understand fits into all these laws you say some "spirirt " made up?

 

[ding]

You're just illustrating the arrogance of humanity because you actually believe you can understand everything in the universe and that human intelligence has no limits and you will make up an answer to a mystery just because you can't stand the fact that you don't know and might not ever know something.

All you are providing here is a contradiction with no supporting evidence. Arguing I can't know anything because I don't know everything is illogical. There is nothing arrogant in believing the universe is an intelligence creating machine. I have no idea what the limits are to human intelligence and that has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. The evolution of space and time did produce intelligence. We know this for a fact.