"Faith" and "Faith"

[Meriweather]

There are many things in nature which science does not directly measure. Einstein's GToR to name one. Evolution to name another. But there are many many others. In fact, I suspect most things are indirectly measured. We believe they are right though because of the indirect measurements and logic and reason; because it makes sense. I am not doing anything differently here.

His null hypothesis was requiring evidence he knows he cannot measure. He literally said that direct measurement was necessary for him to change his mind. That is a null hypothesis.

I on the other hand say that I can indirectly measure God's existence and that logic and reason tell me that it makes perfect sense. Such that it requires less of a leap in logic for me to hold my beliefs than his leap in logic to hold his beliefs.

Absolutely. I follow what you are saying. I am also following what he is saying and doing by using a null hypothesis. Some have no interest in expanding their horizons into philosophy, metaphysics, spirituality--or even logic. I find it somewhat bemusing at how intent and how much effort some spend in creating for themselves a limiting environment in which they do not have to face even the idea of God.

You are one of the explorers who launch into these other arenas where some fear to tread. Letting go of that which is solid and measurable can be terrifying. Also freeing.

 

[ding]

badger isn't.

 

[ding]

#119, you have been refuted. It is not impossible to inspect god, though you continue to do ostrich imitations about what we post, which is cowardice as exhibitionism. You contradict yourself about objective evidence when being a coward to address and debate what we have posted. You're mad.

 

[BS Filter]

Nice try. Your null hypothesis was created by your demanding evidence from outside of space and time. Your null hypothesis was created by your insistence that the lack of said evidence proves God's nonexistence. I don't need to know who or even how something was created to use it as evidence. It is the nature of all tangible things that they can be used as objective evidence. They can be observed, examined and studied. In fact, this is the basis for science. As science is the study of nature to understand how nature works to make predictions concerning nature. Again your logic is flawed, it would not be equally rational to assume that a rock shaped like a boat was built by a boat builder. We live in a universe governed by rules and information. Rules and information are the domain of intelligence. It would be irrational to believe that rules and information are not the domain of intelligence. We live in a universe where the rules of nature are such that beings that know and create (i.e. intelligence) will eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions. It would be irrational to believe that the laws of nature did not predestine intelligence to emerge. SETI searches for signs of intelligent life because they expect intelligence to exist in the universe because of their rational belief that intelligence is a natural condition of life because of the laws of nature. Every stage of the evolution of matter has followed a similar process until such time that consciousness emerged and the universe knows itself. It would be irrational not to recognize the pattern and to project that pattern upon intelligence which is the pinnacle of creation. We live in a deterministic universe where everything has a reason for happening. It would be irrational to believe that there was no purpose for the universe to exist. And it would be irrational to believe that the purpose of the universe is not to produce beings that know and create given that everything that has unfolded has unfolded according to the laws of nature and that intelligence is the pinnacle of creation.

This is a lie. A Null hypothesis demands nothing except to be rejected by virtue of verifiable, objective evidence. Since you insist that such evidence can not be provided, the Null Hypothesis stands as valid. Do feel free to revisit the Null Hypothesis when you are able to provide objective, verifiable evidence to reject it.

In post #85 you wrote "God does not exist" is a null hypothesis based on lack of objective, verifiable evidence to assert otherwise. Once presented with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary, I will alter my position.

In post#104 I asked you what evidence you wanted.

In post #106 you wrote that you wanted direct, measurable, verifiable interaction between this creator, and the universe.

In post #88 I pointed out that your position that you would alter your belief was a null hypothesis because it required something outside of space and time to be measured and observed by something inside of space and time.

You're right,. You don't need to know anything about the creator to use his/her creation to infer information about the creator. However, you do need to know that the thing you are examining is created. Since you have no credible evidence that dictates that the universwe was created, the universe cannot serve as any evidence to infer anything about a creator.

There is more than enough objective evidence that space and time were created ~14 billion years ago. And since that time matter and energy has just changed form. For you to argue otherwise is to argue against science.

Of course you can't. that is my point. anything that is created exhibits tell-tale signs. A rock exhibits none of those signs.

There is more than enough objective indirect evidence that points to intelligence behind existence. We have first hand knowledge of intelligence. You are without excuse because the evidence is plain to see in what that intelligence has created.

Neither rules, nor information is the domain of anything. Recognition of rules, and Comprehension of information are the domains of intelligence. Guess who recognises the physical lwas of the universe? Us. Guess who conprehends the information gathered from observation of the universe? Us. The only intelligence that the rules, and information gathered by observation demonstrates is ours.

Rules are 100% the domain of intelligence. That there are underlying rules which govern the behavior of everything is a sign of a greater intelligence. The very fabric of existence is governed by rules. It is because we are able to examine ourselves that we are able to make the inference that there is intelligence behind existence. We can use our own experiences as a proxy. When we create something it is the realization of our intention that was created for a purpose. The more complex the creation the greater intelligence required. When we create something it is created in steps or stages. The more complex the creation the greater number of steps or stages required.

It is not irrational at all. The very causal nature of the universe dictates that, given enough time, a intelligence would form, in accordance with the laws of physics. There is nothing about the progression of the universe that requires an outside intelligence.

Of course it would be irrational to believe that there is not intelligence behind the laws of nature. The laws of nature existed before space and time and produced intelligence. Logic requires a first cause that is eternal and unchanging. And given that our own experiences tell us that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence and given that intelligence is the pinnacle of creation, it would be irrational to believe there was not intelligence behind creation especially given the incredible complexity of nature.

And it followed that process in accordance with the law of causality, and the Heidenberg principle. Not only, no intelligence necessary, but, as I have explained elsewhere, the Law of causality prevents outside influence.

And you made no sense whatsoever when you tried to do so. As to the Uncertainty principle, how do you know that isn't the creator's backdoor program? You don't.

No, we don't. We live in causal universe, there is a difference. The Heisenberg princiuple, in fact

Nice try. Your null hypothesis was created by your demanding evidence from outside of space and time. Your null hypothesis was created by your insistence that the lack of said evidence proves God's nonexistence. I don't need to know who or even how something was created to use it as evidence. It is the nature of all tangible things that they can be used as objective evidence. They can be observed, examined and studied. In fact, this is the basis for science. As science is the study of nature to understand how nature works to make predictions concerning nature. Again your logic is flawed, it would not be equally rational to assume that a rock shaped like a boat was built by a boat builder. We live in a universe governed by rules and information. Rules and information are the domain of intelligence. It would be irrational to believe that rules and information are not the domain of intelligence. We live in a universe where the rules of nature are such that beings that know and create (i.e. intelligence) will eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions. It would be irrational to believe that the laws of nature did not predestine intelligence to emerge. SETI searches for signs of intelligent life because they expect intelligence to exist in the universe because of their rational belief that intelligence is a natural condition of life because of the laws of nature. Every stage of the evolution of matter has followed a similar process until such time that consciousness emerged and the universe knows itself. It would be irrational not to recognize the pattern and to project that pattern upon intelligence which is the pinnacle of creation. We live in a deterministic universe where everything has a reason for happening. It would be irrational to believe that there was no purpose for the universe to exist. And it would be irrational to believe that the purpose of the universe is not to produce beings that know and create given that everything that has unfolded has unfolded according to the laws of nature and that intelligence is the pinnacle of creation.

This is a lie. A Null hypothesis demands nothing except to be rejected by virtue of verifiable, objective evidence. Since you insist that such evidence can not be provided, the Null Hypothesis stands as valid. Do feel free to revisit the Null Hypothesis when you are able to provide objective, verifiable evidence to reject it.

In post #85 you wrote "God does not exist" is a null hypothesis based on lack of objective, verifiable evidence to assert otherwise. Once presented with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary, I will alter my position.

In post#104 I asked you what evidence you wanted.

In post #106 you wrote that you wanted direct, measurable, verifiable interaction between this creator, and the universe.

In post #88 I pointed out that your position that you would alter your belief was a null hypothesis because it required something outside of space and time to be measured and observed by something inside of space and time.

You're right,. You don't need to know anything about the creator to use his/her creation to infer information about the creator. However, you do need to know that the thing you are examining is created. Since you have no credible evidence that dictates that the universwe was created, the universe cannot serve as any evidence to infer anything about a creator.

There is more than enough objective evidence that space and time were created ~14 billion years ago. And since that time matter and energy has just changed form. For you to argue otherwise is to argue against science.

Of course you can't. that is my point. anything that is created exhibits tell-tale signs. A rock exhibits none of those signs.

There is more than enough objective indirect evidence that points to intelligence behind existence. We have first hand knowledge of intelligence. You are without excuse because the evidence is plain to see in what that intelligence has created.

Neither rules, nor information is the domain of anything. Recognition of rules, and Comprehension of information are the domains of intelligence. Guess who recognises the physical lwas of the universe? Us. Guess who conprehends the information gathered from observation of the universe? Us. The only intelligence that the rules, and information gathered by observation demonstrates is ours.

Rules are 100% the domain of intelligence. That there are underlying rules which govern the behavior of everything is a sign of a greater intelligence. The very fabric of existence is governed by rules. It is because we are able to examine ourselves that we are able to make the inference that there is intelligence behind existence. We can use our own experiences as a proxy. When we create something it is the realization of our intention that was created for a purpose. The more complex the creation the greater intelligence required. When we create something it is created in steps or stages. The more complex the creation the greater number of steps or stages required.

It is not irrational at all. The very causal nature of the universe dictates that, given enough time, a intelligence would form, in accordance with the laws of physics. There is nothing about the progression of the universe that requires an outside intelligence.

Of course it would be irrational to believe that there is not intelligence behind the laws of nature. The laws of nature existed before space and time and produced intelligence. Logic requires a first cause that is eternal and unchanging. And given that our own experiences tell us that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence and given that intelligence is the pinnacle of creation, it would be irrational to believe there was not intelligence behind creation especially given the incredible complexity of nature.

And it followed that process in accordance with the law of causality, and the Heidenberg principle. Not only, no intelligence necessary, but, as I have explained elsewhere, the Law of causality prevents outside influence.

And you made no sense whatsoever when you tried to do so. As to the Uncertainty principle, how do you know that isn't the creator's backdoor program? You don't.

No, we don't. We live in causal universe, there is a difference. The Heisenberg princiuple, in fact, insures that the universe is not deterministic.

You don't understand the Uncertainty principle. I do. You are wrong. Quantum mechanics do not violate the laws of nature. You live in a deterministic universe governed by laws and rules where every cause has an effect. To argue causality is anything more or less is stupid.

What is irrational is to presume that there is any "purpose" to the universe.

Don't be silly. We know from our own experiences that our creations do have a purpose. It is the nature of creations.

He'll never acknowledge that God created the rules of the universe. Until he does, he's just another gerbil going nowhere on the spinning wheel.

 

[Czernobog]

Nice try. Your null hypothesis was created by your demanding evidence from outside of space and time. Your null hypothesis was created by your insistence that the lack of said evidence proves God's nonexistence. I don't need to know who or even how something was created to use it as evidence. It is the nature of all tangible things that they can be used as objective evidence. They can be observed, examined and studied. In fact, this is the basis for science. As science is the study of nature to understand how nature works to make predictions concerning nature. Again your logic is flawed, it would not be equally rational to assume that a rock shaped like a boat was built by a boat builder. We live in a universe governed by rules and information. Rules and information are the domain of intelligence. It would be irrational to believe that rules and information are not the domain of intelligence. We live in a universe where the rules of nature are such that beings that know and create (i.e. intelligence) will eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions. It would be irrational to believe that the laws of nature did not predestine intelligence to emerge. SETI searches for signs of intelligent life because they expect intelligence to exist in the universe because of their rational belief that intelligence is a natural condition of life because of the laws of nature. Every stage of the evolution of matter has followed a similar process until such time that consciousness emerged and the universe knows itself. It would be irrational not to recognize the pattern and to project that pattern upon intelligence which is the pinnacle of creation. We live in a deterministic universe where everything has a reason for happening. It would be irrational to believe that there was no purpose for the universe to exist. And it would be irrational to believe that the purpose of the universe is not to produce beings that know and create given that everything that has unfolded has unfolded according to the laws of nature and that intelligence is the pinnacle of creation.

This is a lie. A Null hypothesis demands nothing except to be rejected by virtue of verifiable, objective evidence. Since you insist that such evidence can not be provided, the Null Hypothesis stands as valid. Do feel free to revisit the Null Hypothesis when you are able to provide objective, verifiable evidence to reject it.

In post #85 you wrote "God does not exist" is a null hypothesis based on lack of objective, verifiable evidence to assert otherwise. Once presented with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary, I will alter my position.

In post#104 I asked you what evidence you wanted.

In post #106 you wrote that you wanted direct, measurable, verifiable interaction between this creator, and the universe.

In post #88 I pointed out that your position that you would alter your belief was a null hypothesis because it required something outside of space and time to be measured and observed by something inside of space and time.

I apologise. I should have been more clear about the Null Hypothesis. The Null hypothesis stands as valid so long as there is no objective, verifiable evidence to contradict it. So, yes you "got me". Hopefully this will clarify my position on the Null Hypothesis.

You're right,. You don't need to know anything about the creator to use his/her creation to infer information about the creator. However, you do need to know that the thing you are examining is created. Since you have no credible evidence that dictates that the universe was created, the universe cannot serve as any evidence to infer anything about a creator.

There is more than enough objective evidence that space and time were created ~14 billion years ago. And since that time matter and energy has just changed form. For you to argue otherwise is to argue against science.

Actually there's not. there is objective evidence that the universe began 14 billion years ago. You presume creation. There's a difference. Further, even granting your presumption. If you are going to "examine" that "creation" as evidence, then the first thing you must concede is the causal nature of the universe, and recognise that this causal nature precludes any event occurring that is not part of a causal chain stretching, unbroken, back to the Big Bang.

Of course you can't. that is my point. anything that is created exhibits tell-tale signs. A rock exhibits none of those signs.

There is more than enough objective indirect evidence that points to intelligence behind existence. We have first hand knowledge of intelligence. You are without excuse because the evidence is plain to see in what that intelligence has created.

I refer you to my previous point.

Neither rules, nor information is the domain of anything. Recognition of rules, and Comprehension of information are the domains of intelligence. Guess who recognises the physical lwas of the universe? Us. Guess who conprehends the information gathered from observation of the universe? Us. The only intelligence that the rules, and information gathered by observation demonstrates is ours.

Rules are 100% the domain of intelligence. That there are underlying rules which govern the behavior of everything is a sign of a greater intelligence. The very fabric of existence is governed by rules. It is because we are able to examine ourselves that we are able to make the inference that there is intelligence behind existence. We can use our own experiences as a proxy. When we create something it is the realization of our intention that was created for a purpose. The more complex the creation the greater intelligence required. When we create something it is created in steps or stages. The more complex the creation the greater number of steps or stages required.

I am not denying that such rules exist. However, without our intelligence those rules would go unrecognised. You seem to be suggesting that order dictates design. It doesn't. Further you are implying an intelligence that can do the impossible. The Heisenberg Principle dictates that that the further from the advent of an event, the more unpredictable the event is. Even an omniscient intelligence can only predict that which is possible of being predicted. Hence it is neither rational, nor logical to assert that an intelligence can predict the unpredictable. so, your "Intelligence" could not reasonably set in motion the universe, and predicted that the "creation"would, of necessity result in, say, us.

It is not irrational at all. The very causal nature of the universe dictates that, given enough time, a intelligence would form, in accordance with the laws of physics. There is nothing about the progression of the universe that requires an outside intelligence.

Of course it would be irrational to believe that there is not intelligence behind the laws of nature. The laws of nature existed before space and time and produced intelligence. Logic requires a first cause that is eternal and unchanging. And given that our own experiences tell us that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence and given that intelligence is the pinnacle of creation, it would be irrational to believe there was not intelligence behind creation especially given the incredible complexity of nature.

No, they didn't You are saying that the rules of nature existed before nature. Really? So what were the rules governing, if there was no nature for them to govern? The statement is, prima facia, absurd.

And it followed that process in accordance with the law of causality, and the Heidenberg principle. Not only, no intelligence necessary, but, as I have explained elsewhere, the Law of causality prevents outside influence.

And you made no sense whatsoever when you tried to do so. As to the Uncertainty principle, how do you know that isn't the creator's backdoor program? You don't.

Of course I do. So do you. You keep wanting to insist how important the rules that govern nature are, yet you want to ignore them when it is convenient. those very rules that you insist are fundamental for the proper function of the universe dictate that every event must be preceded by an event that is part of a chain that reaches, unbroken, all the way back to the Big Bang. that is the fundamental nature of the universe. Hence no event can occur that does not follow that pattern, without altering the fundamental nature of the universe.

No, we don't. We live in causal universe, there is a difference. The Heisenberg principle, in fact, insures that the universe is not deterministic.

You don't understand the Uncertainty principle. I do. You are wrong. Quantum mechanics do not violate the laws of nature. You live in a deterministic universe governed by laws and rules where every cause has an effect. To argue causality is anything more or less is stupid.

Who said anything about Heisenberg violating the laws of nature. It is, in fact, another governing foundation of the universe. The more imprecise your starting condition, the less accurate your predictions. Even tiny amounts of inaccuracy add up, snowballing chaotically, so the further out from "now" you go, the more random it gets. It is this randomness that allows for Free Will, and dictates that the universe is not even probabilistic, let alone deterministic.

What is irrational is to presume that there is any "purpose" to the universe.

Don't be silly. We know from our own experiences that our creations do have a purpose. It is the nature of creations.

Absurd. Many creations are just created, because we could. So, unless "because I could" is your idea of a "purpose", then your reason does not stand. And if "Because I could" is a "valid purpose", in your opinion, then why could not the same purpose be ascribed to the universe?

 

[BS Filter]

Nice try. Your null hypothesis was created by your demanding evidence from outside of space and time. Your null hypothesis was created by your insistence that the lack of said evidence proves God's nonexistence. I don't need to know who or even how something was created to use it as evidence. It is the nature of all tangible things that they can be used as objective evidence. They can be observed, examined and studied. In fact, this is the basis for science. As science is the study of nature to understand how nature works to make predictions concerning nature. Again your logic is flawed, it would not be equally rational to assume that a rock shaped like a boat was built by a boat builder. We live in a universe governed by rules and information. Rules and information are the domain of intelligence. It would be irrational to believe that rules and information are not the domain of intelligence. We live in a universe where the rules of nature are such that beings that know and create (i.e. intelligence) will eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions. It would be irrational to believe that the laws of nature did not predestine intelligence to emerge. SETI searches for signs of intelligent life because they expect intelligence to exist in the universe because of their rational belief that intelligence is a natural condition of life because of the laws of nature. Every stage of the evolution of matter has followed a similar process until such time that consciousness emerged and the universe knows itself. It would be irrational not to recognize the pattern and to project that pattern upon intelligence which is the pinnacle of creation. We live in a deterministic universe where everything has a reason for happening. It would be irrational to believe that there was no purpose for the universe to exist. And it would be irrational to believe that the purpose of the universe is not to produce beings that know and create given that everything that has unfolded has unfolded according to the laws of nature and that intelligence is the pinnacle of creation.

This is a lie. A Null hypothesis demands nothing except to be rejected by virtue of verifiable, objective evidence. Since you insist that such evidence can not be provided, the Null Hypothesis stands as valid. Do feel free to revisit the Null Hypothesis when you are able to provide objective, verifiable evidence to reject it.

In post #85 you wrote "God does not exist" is a null hypothesis based on lack of objective, verifiable evidence to assert otherwise. Once presented with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary, I will alter my position.

In post#104 I asked you what evidence you wanted.

In post #106 you wrote that you wanted direct, measurable, verifiable interaction between this creator, and the universe.

In post #88 I pointed out that your position that you would alter your belief was a null hypothesis because it required something outside of space and time to be measured and observed by something inside of space and time.

I apologise. I should have been more clear about the Null Hypothesis. The Null hypothesis stands as valid so long as there is no objective, verifiable evidence to contradict it. So, yes you "got me". Hopefully this will clarify my position on the Null Hypothesis.

You're right,. You don't need to know anything about the creator to use his/her creation to infer information about the creator. However, you do need to know that the thing you are examining is created. Since you have no credible evidence that dictates that the universe was created, the universe cannot serve as any evidence to infer anything about a creator.

There is more than enough objective evidence that space and time were created ~14 billion years ago. And since that time matter and energy has just changed form. For you to argue otherwise is to argue against science.

Actually there's not. there is objective evidence that the universe began 14 billion years ago. You presume creation. There's a difference. Further, even granting your presumption. If you are going to "examine" that "creation" as evidence, then the first thing you must concede is the causal nature of the universe, and recognise that this causal nature precludes any event occurring that is not part of a causal chain stretching, unbroken, back to the Big Bang.

Of course you can't. that is my point. anything that is created exhibits tell-tale signs. A rock exhibits none of those signs.

There is more than enough objective indirect evidence that points to intelligence behind existence. We have first hand knowledge of intelligence. You are without excuse because the evidence is plain to see in what that intelligence has created.

I refer you to my previous point.

Neither rules, nor information is the domain of anything. Recognition of rules, and Comprehension of information are the domains of intelligence. Guess who recognises the physical lwas of the universe? Us. Guess who conprehends the information gathered from observation of the universe? Us. The only intelligence that the rules, and information gathered by observation demonstrates is ours.

Rules are 100% the domain of intelligence. That there are underlying rules which govern the behavior of everything is a sign of a greater intelligence. The very fabric of existence is governed by rules. It is because we are able to examine ourselves that we are able to make the inference that there is intelligence behind existence. We can use our own experiences as a proxy. When we create something it is the realization of our intention that was created for a purpose. The more complex the creation the greater intelligence required. When we create something it is created in steps or stages. The more complex the creation the greater number of steps or stages required.

I am not denying that such rules exist. However, without our intelligence those rules would go unrecognised. You seem to be suggesting that order dictates design. It doesn't. Further you are implying an intelligence that can do the impossible. The Heisenberg Principle dictates that that the further from the advent of an event, the more unpredictable the event is. Even an omniscient intelligence can only predict that which is possible of being predicted. Hence it is neither rational, nor logical to assert that an intelligence can predict the unpredictable. so, your "Intelligence" could not reasonably set in motion the universe, and predicted that the "creation"would, of necessity result in, say, us.

It is not irrational at all. The very causal nature of the universe dictates that, given enough time, a intelligence would form, in accordance with the laws of physics. There is nothing about the progression of the universe that requires an outside intelligence.

Of course it would be irrational to believe that there is not intelligence behind the laws of nature. The laws of nature existed before space and time and produced intelligence. Logic requires a first cause that is eternal and unchanging. And given that our own experiences tell us that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence and given that intelligence is the pinnacle of creation, it would be irrational to believe there was not intelligence behind creation especially given the incredible complexity of nature.

No, they didn't You are saying that the rules of nature existed before nature. Really? So what were the rules governing, if there was no nature for them to govern? The statement is, prima facia, absurd.

And it followed that process in accordance with the law of causality, and the Heidenberg principle. Not only, no intelligence necessary, but, as I have explained elsewhere, the Law of causality prevents outside influence.

And you made no sense whatsoever when you tried to do so. As to the Uncertainty principle, how do you know that isn't the creator's backdoor program? You don't.

Of course I do. So do you. You keep wanting to insist how important the rules that govern nature are, yet you want to ignore them when it is convenient. those very rules that you insist are fundamental for the proper function of the universe dictate that every event must be preceded by an event that is part of a chain that reaches, unbroken, all the way back to the Big Bang. that is the fundamental nature of the universe. Hence no event can occur that does not follow that pattern, without altering the fundamental nature of the universe.

No, we don't. We live in causal universe, there is a difference. The Heisenberg principle, in fact, insures that the universe is not deterministic.

You don't understand the Uncertainty principle. I do. You are wrong. Quantum mechanics do not violate the laws of nature. You live in a deterministic universe governed by laws and rules where every cause has an effect. To argue causality is anything more or less is stupid.

Who said anything about Heisenberg violating the laws of nature. It is, in fact, another governing foundation of the universe. The more imprecise your starting condition, the less accurate your predictions. Even tiny amounts of inaccuracy add up, snowballing chaotically, so the further out from "now" you go, the more random it gets. It is this randomness that allows for Free Will, and dictates that the universe is not even probabilistic, let alone deterministic.

What is irrational is to presume that there is any "purpose" to the universe.

Don't be silly. We know from our own experiences that our creations do have a purpose. It is the nature of creations.

Absurd. Many creations are just created, because we could. So, unless "because I could" is your idea of a "purpose", then your reason does not stand. And if "Because I could" is a "valid purpose", in your opinion, then why could not the same purpose be ascribed to the universe?

Until you acknowledge God lives outside of time and space, you are going to keep spinning your wheels. Fun to watch.

 

[ding]

Actually there's not. there is objective evidence that the universe began 14 billion years ago. You presume creation. There's a difference. Further, even granting your presumption. If you are going to "examine" that "creation" as evidence, then the first thing you must concede is the causal nature of the universe, and recognise that this causal nature precludes any event occurring that is not part of a causal chain stretching, unbroken, back to the Big Bang.

We know that the universe had a beginning and then began expanding and cooling and evolved into what exists today. That is what I am calling creation. Everything unfolded within the limits of natural laws; both physical laws and moral laws.

I do recognize that we live in a deterministic universe. It is scientifically provable that we live in a deterministic universe. I dispute that an outside cause violates causality. It is merely another cause with a corresponding effect.

I am not arguing that God is pulling any strings within creation though. I am arguing that the laws of nature are in and of itself self compensating which provide feedback which informs our choices and behaviors.

I am not denying that such rules exist. However, without our intelligence those rules would go unrecognised. You seem to be suggesting that order dictates design. It doesn't. Further you are implying an intelligence that can do the impossible. The Heisenberg Principle dictates that that the further from the advent of an event, the more unpredictable the event is. Even an omniscient intelligence can only predict that which is possible of being predicted. Hence it is neither rational, nor logical to assert that an intelligence can predict the unpredictable. so, your "Intelligence" could not reasonably set in motion the universe, and predicted that the "creation"would, of necessity result in, say, us.

Yes, but we do have intelligence and they have not gone unrecognized. They have been waiting in time for us to discover them. The Laws of Nature - physical and moral - are part of the fabric of existence. They exist independent of our observations. So whether or not we are aware that they exist, they do indeed exist and provide feedback to us so that we may be able to discover them.

I don't think you understand that life is built into the Laws of Nature. Given enough time and the right conditions, beings that know and create (i.e. intelligence will eventually arise. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is quantum mechanics principle, but quantum mechanics do not violate Natural Laws. They follow Natural Laws. SETI understands that intelligence is built into the Laws of Nature, that is why they search for intelligence. They literally expect to find it.

Yes, intelligence can set in motion the creation of space and time and know that intelligence would arise because the Laws of Nature have written life into the fabric of existence. Given enough time and the right conditions, beings that know and create will eventually arise. We were literally willed into existence.

No, they didn't You are saying that the rules of nature existed before nature. Really? So what were the rules governing, if there was no nature for them to govern? The statement is, prima facia, absurd.

Yes, 100%. The creation of space and time followed rules; quantum and conservation. Those rules existed before space and time because they were the rules that governed the creation of space and time and the evolution of matter and energy.

For you to argue that rules pop into existence would violate the speed of light. The rules of nature are part of the fabric of existence just as gravity is a part of the fabric of space and time. They have been waiting in time for us to discover them. The Laws of Nature - physical and moral - are part of the fabric of existence. They exist independent of our observations. So whether or not we are aware that they exist, they do indeed exist and provide feedback to us so that we may be able to discover them.

Absurd. Many creations are just created, because we could. So, unless "because I could" is your idea of a "purpose", then your reason does not stand. And if "Because I could" is a "valid purpose", in your opinion, then why could not the same purpose be ascribed to the universe?

Despite your attempt to define the rule by exception the reality is that when we create something it is the realization of our intention and we did create it for a specific purpose. The more complex the creation the greater intelligence required and steps needed in the process. These are all things everyone should be able to understand from their own experiences.

Can you give me an example of something you created that had no purpose and then tell me why you created it?

 

[badger2]

It is impossible for god to live outside of time and space and be a cause. There is no such thing as presence in itself. That is why god commanded adam to name the animals, and why radical atheism is more intelligent than religion.

 

[ding]

It is impossible for god to live outside of time and space and be a cause. There is no such thing as presence in itself. That is why god commanded adam to name the animals, and why radical atheism is more intelligent than religion.

Atheism, especially militant atheism, is intellectually dead.

Why would it be impossible for God to live outside of time and space and be a cause? A cause of what?

 

[BS Filter]

It is impossible for god to live outside of time and space and be a cause. There is no such thing as presence in itself. That is why god commanded adam to name the animals, and why radical atheism is more intelligent than religion.

You fail to understand that if there is a God, the nothing would be impossible for God.

 

[ding]

It is impossible for god to live outside of time and space and be a cause. There is no such thing as presence in itself. That is why god commanded adam to name the animals, and why radical atheism is more intelligent than religion.

You fail to understand that if there is a God, the nothing would be impossible for God.

badger2 is a troll.

He doesn't know jack shit.

 

[BS Filter]

He's not alone. There's quite a few ignorant trolls in this section.