Zone1 Why do you need gods?

[ding]

Cannot allow that. Since I am not a supernatural being beyond space and time eternal and all knowing I can't really compare my actions with that of God, whatever the conception.

Proxies are used routinely in science when the thing you want to directly measure can only be indirectly measured. It's pretty common. If I found something you created and I did not know you created it could I use what you created as evidence to learn something about you.

 

[ding]

Again, that purpose is nowhere required for nature.

I was giving you an example of how we can use our experiences as creators as a proxy. Much can be learned from such an exercise. Before you knock it, you should try it.

 

[ding]

Here's where you syllogism fails: you have jumped to a conclusion based on flawed assumptions (ie comparing my limited physical actions and brain with that of the eternal unchanging God of all creation.)

Again... Proxies are used routinely in science when the thing you want to directly measure can only be indirectly measured. It's pretty common. If I found something you created and I did not know you created it could I use what you created as evidence to learn something about you.

 

[ding]

Does it though? My dog has "intelligence" yet he creates nothing and doesn't really do anything.

You want to use your dog as an argument that it's not the nature of intelligence to create intelligence?

First of all you should start that evaluation with humans and not dogs and then hopefully you will see just how self evident the statement that it's the nature of intelligence to create intelligence really is. We're obsessed with making smart things. Secondly your dog does do something; he makes you happy. That's the main purpose of your dog. From your owning a dog I can make several educated guesses about your nature because I can use my motivations as a proxy for your motivations.

 

[ding]

WE are, but we are not the only thing with "intelligence" on this planet.

Correct but as near as I can tell we are the only beings on the planet that know and create.

All life forms possess some level of intelligence and sentience. We know this because they are aware of their surroundings (sentience) and react to their environment in a logical fashion (intelligence). But that doesn't mean we should be using their behaviors and motivations as proxies for God.

So if you look at human beings, it's self evident that it's our nature - as beings that know and create - to create intelligent things.

 

[ding]

That sounds nice. Unevidence, but nice.

It all goes back to the original question; was the universe created intentionally or was it an accidental circumstance of happenstance. The only evidence we have to answer that question is by studying what was created. In that light, everything is evidence. The only question is have you studied the evidence to answer the question. I have.

I've looked at the physical, biological and moral laws of nature and have concluded it couldn't have been any other way than a creative act whose purpose was to produce beings that know and create.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Most likely because you have an unrealistic perception and expectation of God. I see this all the time. You can't believe in God because bad things happen to good people or because you perceive the God of the OT is a meanie and did horrible violent things to His creatures.

You are actually quite wrong.

 

[ding]

And that "life" is always made up of the same chemicals as the rest of the junk around us. In fact life's chemistry is nothing more than regular chemistry. "Life" isn't that utterly amazing, nor is it some mystical "thing" or "essence" apart from just plain ol' natural chemistry.

I'm going to go so far as to say that much of your mental state is drive in no small way by CHEMISTRY.

If the distance between the electron and the nucleus were any different the universe could have been created in exactly the same way but would be entirely devoid of life. If the charge of the electron were not exactly opposite the charge of the proton, the universe could have been created in exactly the same way but would be entirely devoid of life. If the size of the electron between the electron and the nucleus were any different the universe could have been created in exactly the same way but would be entirely devoid of life. If the relative size of the electron to the proton were larger, the universe could have been created in exactly the same way but would be entirely devoid of life.

As for the chemistry of the elements, yes, of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C); and is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends. As George Wald said, "These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics."

The universe is finely tuned to produce life. It's literally hardwired into the structure of matter.

 

[ding]

This is an argument that actually runs "backwards". There isn't anything special about us existing...we do arise from this particular selection of physical laws, but if the physical laws were different life would likely be different. But even if a universe existed without life it would be effectively the same.

It's this 'Purpose' thing you get hung up on. There's no obvious NEED for a purpose. There may be a DESIRE on your part for a purpose, but no "need".

I agree that there is nothing special about us. If the physical laws were different the most likely outcome would be a universe devoid of life. A universe capable of producing life is unusual. Change almost anything and life wouldn't be able to arise. For example, if water behaved like nearly everything else and kept contracting as it froze... no life anywhere would be possible.

It's the unlikeness of a universe capable of breeding living things which makes the coincidental happenstance seem unlikely. It's not an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence.

 

[Mr Natural]

Why do people have a need to believe in gods?

To have someone to blame.

 

[ding]

No it isn't. The earth existed for literally BILLIONS of years without life developing "intelligence" of any real sort.

Now you are just being silly by arguing that the biological laws aren't such that life is programmed to survive and multiply.

Yes, the earth did exist for BILLIONS of years without life developing "intelligence" of any real sort. So what? You can't put a roof on house that doesn't have the walls built. Everything in due time.

1. Cosmic evolution
2. Stellar evolution
3. Chemical evolution
4. Biological evolution
5. Evolution of consciousness

There's no skipping steps.

 

[BreezeWood]

Or it is one God and many see him, her or it in different ways…

Personally I believe let people believe what they want to believe and let me live in peace but alas most humans lack that way of thinking.

that's a double edge sword ...

as long as you are not their victim. how the desert religions have survived, their beliefs and living off their victims.

 

[ding]

No such purpose is in evidence. Again, it may be your personal wish, but that does not make it ipso facto real.

When you create something do you create it for a reason to serve a purpose? Of course you do.

As for no evidence...

1. Cosmic evolution
2. Stellar evolution
3. Chemical evolution
4. Biological evolution
5. Evolution of consciousness

...say otherwise.

 

[ding]

I disagree with the predicate.

You disagree with the statement, "If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist." Why?

If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist.

 

[ding]

Really? So when an ice cube grows in the refrigerator and it creates a crystal with a repeating pattern of atoms lined up exactly and in accordance with the rules of thermodynamics and physics and chemistry it means that an "intelligence" is required?

In reality it's nothing more than "energy minimizing" and stacking atoms. Nothing more really.

No. It means exactly what I wrote.. 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.

 

[ding]

Predicate causes do NOT indicate "purpose". It simply indicates something happened before something else.

It does if the universe was intentionally created to produce beings that know and create. Which was the original question I started with.

 

[ding]

I profoundly disagree.

Why do you disagree with my statement that the very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose?

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information, correct?

Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence, correct?

Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence, right?

The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event, right?

The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists, right?

The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect, right?

How can you not conclude that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose? The premise of evolution is that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose, right?

 

[ding]

In a sense it IS an argument built on "fairy tales". But not the "supernatural kind", rather the fairy tales of our "wishes" overlaid on the physical world.

I disagree. Can you explain how beings that know and create came to be if it wasn't predestined by the laws of nature after the universe literally popped into existence being created from nothing.

 

[ding]

Where does spirit come from again?

Eternal and unchanging. There's no other logical possibility.

 

[ding]

I like that.

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.