Why the Eternal Creative Source of All Our Universe is Intelligent

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by JimBowie1958, Dec 27, 2012.

  1. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    39,343
    Thanks Received:
    5,506
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +21,477
    I often play MMOs like Lord of the Rings Online, Everquest, etc, and in these games there are various endeavors that the game designers place to keep people on a sort of tredmill of activity to keep their interests.

    In LOTRO, crafting is a fairly complex facet of the game and going out to gather resources takes quite a bit of time. Rocky nodes bearing ores, fallen branches containing useful wood, and other things useful in crafting endeavors appear all over the wilderness and you have to find them.

    Now if these resources appeared in a purely random way, then there is no use to trying to figure out a pattern in which they appear, nor a frequency. Some games just use randomness to do this sort of thing. LOTRO does not. That I can deduce a pattern and it saves me time as I search for crafting resources.

    So randmoness does not produce a pattern while a designed pattern of spawning does and it isnt that difficult to see these patterns though proving them scientifically would seem a waste of time.

    We know that something exists outside of our known universe that gave birth to our universe in the Big Bang. We dont know from that if this was the act of an intelligent Being or the random result of interdimensional membranes according to M Theory or maybe something else.

    But the patterns that we see in Nature and its Laws are so full of purposeful design that it implies an intellligent force behind it. This is the very basis on which our concept of science depends.
     
  2. newpolitics
    Offline

    newpolitics vegan atheist indy

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,931
    Thanks Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +283
    Randomness does not produce a pattern? What about snowflakes? There is no designer for snowflakes, yet everything about them suggests "design" even though we understand exactly how they are made. Not only that, but they are all unique. Surely, there must be a creator- nope, it is just the "randomness" of nature which consists of a few fundamental forces, matter, and the right conditions. Fractals are ever-present in nature.

    No one KNOWS that anything exists outside this universe. You are simply assuming this because you find it to be intuitive. Reality is not intuitive beyond the scales of our normal observation, going into either the macro-universe or the micro-univeres. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are not intuitive. As far as the big bang and a first cause argument: Causation is temporal. Time did not exist before the big bang, therefore, causation did not exist (necessarily). Therefore, there did not need to be a cause, no matter how un-intuitive that may seem to us as humans. Point is, don't make claims unless you have evidence, which you, nor, anyone else does. If you do, it is just an argument from ignorance.

    You find design in everything, simply because, you already believe in a designer. That is it. To anyone else who doesn't already believe, there is no design in anything. Therefore, it is simply confirmation bias on your part. Other than that, you did good. Oh wait, there's nothing left...
     
  3. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    39,343
    Thanks Received:
    5,506
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +21,477
    No, the pattern is due to the chemical design of water molecules, lol.


    Understanding how something is made does not disprove a design.


    And fractals are not random either. Fractal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Yes, we do. You cant get something from nothing on the scale we see in our universe. This general principle is valid though there are some quantum appearances of what seems to be matter from random variations, but then again, it just as quickly randomly disappears too.

    Yes, in the same way that 2+2 is intuitively true. We evolved these understandings of Nature and there is no reason to disregard them outside of the lab. While it is not scientific, most truths we operate on daily are not based on science.


    Things can be intuitive to some people and not the to vast majority.

    The Theory of Relativity was intuitive to Einstein and he deduced almost all of it from basic observations using logic. It seems unintuitive to you because it is different from what you are used to. Were it entirely unintuitive then Einstein couldnt have deduced Relativity as it was only confirmed over the many decades since he published it. IF its 'weirdness' was not at all intuitive he could not have come up with the theory, lol.


    Causation in our known universe came into existance at the instant the Big Bang began, but that does not mean there was not some form of time in existance outside of our universe. Thus your derived conclusion that time is unnecesary is unsupported by any evidence, and in fact is ridiculous. Something changed that caused the Big Bang, and that is obvious, though you might like to pretend otherwise, for some reason.

    I do have evidence, the Big Bang, the way time works, the way causality works.

    All you have is a blind willfullness to deny things that are obviously true.

    I see no design in truly random numbers. I see no design in the appearance of raindrops on a sidewalk. But a snowflake is not like that, nor are other things that show a pattern and design.


    No, the confirmation bias is on your part. You dont see the design involved in fractals, for example, because you dont wish to. You think that the organization of a snowflake is random.

    You have conditioned yourself to ignore the obvious for whatever reason.

    But willful blindness on your part does not equate to 'nothing left' on my part.

    But lets put your view to the test: show me a fractal that has no design to it. That is a simple thing to do if fractals are not designed.

    ROFLMAO.
     
  4. newpolitics
    Offline

    newpolitics vegan atheist indy

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,931
    Thanks Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +283

    You demonstrated my point for me. Thanks. Your right, it isn't "randomness" that produces snowflakes, so why do you assert that it is "randomness" that would produce life? Randomness is just a placeholder for theists who want to demote probabilistically determined processes in a naturalistic universe. Randomness doesn't exist in a universe with four fundamental forces acting on matter in the way you wish it to mean, so neither can it apply to abiognesis, evolution, or the existence of the laws themselves. You have refuted your own argument here. As for your responses the cosmological components of this discussion, you just ignored what I said and reasserted your premises without refuting my own position. Stop being convinced that you are right. You are not. You can not establish any knowledge about what happened before the big bang, so stop pretending to have it. It's just the usual arrogance on the part of theists to posit intuition as evidence. There isn't a single syllogism that establishes god or a first cause. We are left in total ignorance as to what caused our universe, or if there even needs to be a cause, so it is useless to make knowledge claims. You don't know a damn thing. To say the universe can't come from nothing is a claim you can't make.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
  5. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    39,343
    Thanks Received:
    5,506
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +21,477
    Where is your fractal that is not designed? You said there is such a thing, so where is it?
    Lol, you failed on every point, but *I* somehow proved your point? ROFLMAO

    I never asserted anything about the origin of life here. Why cant you stay focused on the topic?


    No, it isnt. There is genuine randomness, for example the result of a 2d6 roll through a box of redirecting panels is entirely random and a proper tool for generating random numbers for a one use code pad, for example.

    It is interesting that you have made such a simple and apparent false assertion, a habit you seem to be unable to break such as your ludicrous claim that fractals are not designed.

    Of course random processes can be found, though you are a denier on the topic, and that proves nothing at all except that you can choose to be very irrational.

    Lol, not hardly.

    Your assertions have been refuted in detail. Any lurker can read the thread and decide for themselves, but you have nothing but obviously flawed rhetorical claims.

    I am not always right, but then again no one is among mortal men.

    But it is absurd for you to make a blank statement that I am wrong when you cant even grasp the things I am asserting.

    It is no pretense. We know how causal events require time to occur. We know that matter and energy, while they can change form, they do not simply appear in vast quantities or similarly vanish. Your assertions are completely contrary to the most basic physics.

    Ah, now you have to paint me as one of them to make a case? That sort of cheap rhetorical nonsense is the standard fare of a lost argument.

    Of course there is which is why pagans have been converting to theism for thousands of years now ever since Socrates.


    You are in willfull ignorance and you erroneously project your ignorance onto the rest of humanity.

    Again, you cannot know what I do and do not know. Your assertion is absurd and false on its face.

    I did make it, and it is a fact of science that matter/energy cannot simply appear and disappear outside of very minute quantum variations that appear and disappear constantly.

    While you fetch up that undesigned fractal, the record stands; you have nothing but simplistic denial common to that of any juvenile in a play ground.
     
  6. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    What would a pattern that is not "full of purposeful design" look like to you? Or is "the patterns ...are so full of purposeful design" just a tautological statement?
     
  7. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    39,343
    Thanks Received:
    5,506
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +21,477
    Random rain drops can, by chance, form a subjective pattern that has no design to it.

    There are a number of random process that evade even the butterfly pattern of chaos theory, as I understand it, though most randomness has a pattern to it if you analyze its data, again, as I understand it.

    This is a list of various ways of recognising patterns:
    Pattern recognition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    But some things simply have no recognisable pattern, such as a set of null values, for example.

    Design can have a purpose, or not, but I think most does, unless you define design as always having a purpose, which seems unnecesary to me.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
  8. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    You're using a lot of different words but I'm not sure what significance you're attaching to them: pattern, design, purpose, etc.

    There are rules in place in the universe, certainly I agree with that. The rules--the laws of physics--produce predictable, recurring outcomes, which I assume are the patterns you refer to. Indeed, it's those patterns that allow us to deduce the rules in the first place.

    But what does it mean for those rules to demonstrate purpose (which, if I understand you correctly, is what you take to imply the involvement of an "intelligent force")? Suppose different regions of the universe obey different physical laws and that ultimately there is a multitude--maybe even an infinite variety--of different rules in effect in different places. Does that weaken the argument for purpose behind the existence of such laws or would it just imply different purposes at work in different regions?

    I've always found the teleological argument for god(s) to be the most interesting one, but it's always struck me as having an anthropomorphic bias or a sort of logical leap of analogy that never struck me as being obviously valid.
     
  9. newpolitics
    Offline

    newpolitics vegan atheist indy

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,931
    Thanks Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +283
    Let me spell it out for you: you can not make unsubstantiated claims and pretend they mean anything, until you can back them up with EVIDENCE, which you don't have, because your position is predicated on faith.

    How are fractals designed??? They are the product of natural forces, numbnuts. They are no more designed than is a mountain, due to tectonic forces, or a cloud, due to condensation. We understand the NATURAL forces behind a snowflake, and although it appears designed, we know it wasn't because we can fully account for its formation.

    Inside the universe, we observe certain "laws" and consistencies with respect to the behavior of matter and energy, however we are talking about a realm before time, matter, energy, and CAUSATION. Any attempt to use inductive logic to infer what caused the universe is committing the composition fallacy. You CAN NOT make any conclusions about how this universe came into being, because we are simply ignorant to it. Hence, you are making an argument from ignorance, as well. You are ripe with logical fallacy.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2012
  10. tonystewart1
    Offline

    tonystewart1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    914
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    McDowell County, WV
    Ratings:
    +155
    If your belief is that God created the world then the only proof you need to provide is Gensis. Its abour faith and you can not argue faith logically. Faith precludes logic. I beileve that God created the world but why waste your time trying to prove an intelegent designer when the belief in one is a matter of faith.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

intelligent creative source