If there is a God...

[Indeependent]

So you are saying that a rule that operates within a particular sphere, describing or prescribing what is possible or allowable is not a sign of intelligence or thought?

Have you ever made a rule?

That I have made a rule does not mean that all rules are created by an intelligence. Nor does it mean the use of the word rule must be the same in all contexts.

I think law is the more commonly used word. The physical laws, laws of the universe, etc. Humanity has created many different laws. Does that mean that the laws that govern the universe are the same as the laws created by man? Of course not. Nor do I think that most people, upon hearing the phrase "physical laws of the universe," assume that the use of the term laws implies that those laws must have been created by an intelligence, even if they believe they were created by such an intelligence.

Didn't the laws of nature produce intelligence?

Which laws of nature don't show intelligence behind them?

There may have been an intelligence behind them, but none of them inherently show intelligence.

At its base, your argument boils down to that any sort of order must come from intelligence.

It depends on the magnitude of the intelligence.
You will not find a scientist giving a speech before his peers that will deny the existence of the possibility of God.
The problem is that nobody wants to watch any scientific speech for an hour,

I do. Love them. Better than a surmount.

You’ll never hear real scientists mention god in a scientific forum.

Yes you will; you simply don't watch the speeches.

 

[sealybobo]

1. The reason that people argue about evolution/adaptation is because of the data that shows changes in populations over the course of thousands of years. People argue against the data that shows the evolution of a species. If the data showed no changes, then no one would be arguing evolution because there would be no evolution/adaptation to argue about.

2. No one has ever argued with someone over the contents of a book that did not exist.

I would guess that someone has argued of the contents of a book that did not exist at some point. There has probably been an author who died, and there were rumors that an unpublished book existed; fans of the author may then have argued over what the book would be about, or what would occur in it, even though that book may not have actually been more than rumor.

I'm not sure how this relates to god. The concept of a god clearly exists, so some argue for it or against it; were you trying to say that if the idea of god didn't exist, no one would be arguing about it?

People argue over things that they feel strongly about. Do you know of any other concept that people don't believe exists that they feel strongly about?

Ghosts. A soul. An afterlife. Reincarnation. Intelligent life other than humans. The Holocaust. A better mousetrap.

It seems you have switched from arguing about the concept of something to actually arguing about the something. Does that mean people argue against the existence of God instead of the concept of God?

Let's put that aside though, I have to disagree with you. Ghosts, A soul, An afterlife, Reincarnation, Intelligent life other than humans, The Holocaust or A better mousetrap do not come close to matching the magnitude and degree of opposition that belief in God evokes. It has no contemporary comparison. Just look at the disrespect.

There is no ‘disrespect’ in acknowledging the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, it’s simply acknowledging the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

And it isn’t ‘opposition’ to a belief in an omnipotent deity, it’s an opposition to the consequence of such belief: the arrogance, the ignorance, the hate, bigotry, and racism that manifest among far too many theists.

We see examples of that hate and bigotry in America daily, as theists seek to violate the rights and protected liberties of gay and transgender Americans, and discriminate against gay and transgender Americans in places of business.

Of course most theists do not harbor such bigotry and hate, and many speak out against it; indeed, the majority of gay and transgender Americans are persons of faith, illustrating the confused inconsistency of religious dogma, and the fact that religion and ‘god’ are indeed creations of man.

What he said ding

 

[sealybobo]

Sell a lot, make my dog happy, get a date for tomorrow and rid the world of a lie I feel holds us all back

How does knowing that life existed on Mars or any other scientific breakthrough change anything about the purpose of your life today? The truth: God is. Devoting oneself to what one believes is a lie seems a little counterproductive.

Like most Christians talking about god is a small part of my day but I probably think and talk about god more than most theists.

I feel like I know a secret truth that nobody knows and I’m trying to spread the knowledge. We’ll all be better off in the long run. If future humans aren’t brainwashed with a cruel lie for their first 18 years.... let’s just say they’ve done studies and atheists are happy productive good citizens.

 

[sealybobo]

That I have made a rule does not mean that all rules are created by an intelligence. Nor does it mean the use of the word rule must be the same in all contexts.

I think law is the more commonly used word. The physical laws, laws of the universe, etc. Humanity has created many different laws. Does that mean that the laws that govern the universe are the same as the laws created by man? Of course not. Nor do I think that most people, upon hearing the phrase "physical laws of the universe," assume that the use of the term laws implies that those laws must have been created by an intelligence, even if they believe they were created by such an intelligence.

Didn't the laws of nature produce intelligence?

Which laws of nature don't show intelligence behind them?

There may have been an intelligence behind them, but none of them inherently show intelligence.

At its base, your argument boils down to that any sort of order must come from intelligence.

It depends on the magnitude of the intelligence.
You will not find a scientist giving a speech before his peers that will deny the existence of the possibility of God.
The problem is that nobody wants to watch any scientific speech for an hour,

I do. Love them. Better than a surmount.

You’ll never hear real scientists mention god in a scientific forum.

Yes you will; you simply don't watch the speeches.

Those are theists trying to make god a theory. It’s not. Still only a hypothesis

 

[Indeependent]

Sell a lot, make my dog happy, get a date for tomorrow and rid the world of a lie I feel holds us all back

How does knowing that life existed on Mars or any other scientific breakthrough change anything about the purpose of your life today? The truth: God is. Devoting oneself to what one believes is a lie seems a little counterproductive.

Like most Christians talking about god is a small part of my day but I probably think and talk about god more than most theists.

I feel like I know a secret truth that nobody knows and I’m trying to spread the knowledge. We’ll all be better off in the long run. If future humans aren’t brainwashed with a cruel lie for their first 18 years.... let’s just say they’ve done studies and atheists are happy productive good citizens.

It's not good to lie when a simple Google search shows you're full of crap.

 

[presonorek]

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?

One thing I can attribute to Him. He hasn't allowed us to all freeze to death.

 

[ding]

Don't rules imply thought?

Don't rules imply intelligence?

No.

So you are saying that a rule that operates within a particular sphere, describing or prescribing what is possible or allowable is not a sign of intelligence or thought?

Have you ever made a rule?

That I have made a rule does not mean that all rules are created by an intelligence. Nor does it mean the use of the word rule must be the same in all contexts.

I think law is the more commonly used word. The physical laws, laws of the universe, etc. Humanity has created many different laws. Does that mean that the laws that govern the universe are the same as the laws created by man? Of course not. Nor do I think that most people, upon hearing the phrase "physical laws of the universe," assume that the use of the term laws implies that those laws must have been created by an intelligence, even if they believe they were created by such an intelligence.

Didn't the laws of nature produce intelligence?

Which laws of nature don't show intelligence behind them?

There may have been an intelligence behind them, but none of them inherently show intelligence.

At its base, your argument boils down to that any sort of order must come from intelligence.

No, my argument is that this specific order has come from intelligence. That the laws of nature are such that beings that know and create (i.e. intelligence) were predestined to exist by very specific laws of nature in a very rich and complex fashion and that signs of intelligence are everywhere given the right conditions and enough time.

Collectively all laws of nature show signs of intelligence. The exact same pattern can be seen at every stage of the evolution of matter from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create. You have to look at it from the creation of space and time until now. You were literally present for the birth of space and time and since that time the matter and energy in your body has merely changed form. The universe literally became aware of itself and you don't believe there is intelligence behind that?

 

[Meriweather]

Like most Christians talking about god is a small part of my day but I probably think and talk about god more than most theists.

I feel like I know a secret truth that nobody knows and I’m trying to spread the knowledge. We’ll all be better off in the long run. If future humans aren’t brainwashed with a cruel lie for their first 18 years.... let’s just say they’ve done studies and atheists are happy productive good citizens.

I do know. And, you are spreading a lie. There is a famous line in Shakespeare's Hamlet:

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

That is what I am saying to you. You are arguing back that there are fewer things in heaven and earth--that, in fact, one doesn't even exist. This philosophy is too small and cramped for me. Get out and explore. There is a whole wide world beyond the physical one, so think hard before you decide to limit yourself.

 

[Indeependent]

Didn't the laws of nature produce intelligence?

Which laws of nature don't show intelligence behind them?

There may have been an intelligence behind them, but none of them inherently show intelligence.

At its base, your argument boils down to that any sort of order must come from intelligence.

It depends on the magnitude of the intelligence.
You will not find a scientist giving a speech before his peers that will deny the existence of the possibility of God.
The problem is that nobody wants to watch any scientific speech for an hour,

I do. Love them. Better than a surmount.

You’ll never hear real scientists mention god in a scientific forum.

Yes you will; you simply don't watch the speeches.

Those are theists trying to make god a theory. It’s not. Still only a hypothesis

What you'll hear every atheist scientist say during a speech when having to admit the universe is mathematically impossible, "It's almost as if there were a God..."

 

[sealybobo]

People argue over things that they feel strongly about. Do you know of any other concept that people don't believe exists that they feel strongly about?

Ghosts. A soul. An afterlife. Reincarnation. Intelligent life other than humans. The Holocaust. A better mousetrap.

It seems you have switched from arguing about the concept of something to actually arguing about the something. Does that mean people argue against the existence of God instead of the concept of God?

Let's put that aside though, I have to disagree with you. Ghosts, A soul, An afterlife, Reincarnation, Intelligent life other than humans, The Holocaust or A better mousetrap do not come close to matching the magnitude and degree of opposition that belief in God evokes. It has no contemporary comparison. Just look at the disrespect.

You just asked for things people do not believe exist that the feel strongly about. You didn't say those things had to be as important or prevalent as the idea of god.

It goes back to Meriweather's point.

If atheists really believed God didn't exist they wouldn't be arguing like they do about it. It isn't enough for them not to believe in God, they want everyone not to believe in God.

And I disagree completely with that point. If they really believed a god existed, why would they argue one does not? Why would someone not argue about something they do not believe exists? If an adult were to honestly try to claim that Santa Claus exists, I would certainly argue the point. If an adult were to claim that dragons exist, I would argue the point.

Plenty of people have argued that speciation, or macro-evolution, does not exist, to bring up the evolution example. There are long, drawn out arguments about that very subject I've been involved in on this site.

I agree that many atheists probably want everyone to not believe in god. So what? People generally do want others to think the same way they do in an argument.

He’s trying to flip the script on us. Just the fact humans came up with it and held onto it for so long. If it were a lie wouldn’t we have shed the idea?

Well first of all we are shedding the idea and second, for thousands of years we’ve been forced to believe or keep quiet.

They can’t imagine we truly believe that the world would be better off without religions. They get a lot of joy from it so they can’t see it any other way

 

[Montrovant]

No.

So you are saying that a rule that operates within a particular sphere, describing or prescribing what is possible or allowable is not a sign of intelligence or thought?

Have you ever made a rule?

That I have made a rule does not mean that all rules are created by an intelligence. Nor does it mean the use of the word rule must be the same in all contexts.

I think law is the more commonly used word. The physical laws, laws of the universe, etc. Humanity has created many different laws. Does that mean that the laws that govern the universe are the same as the laws created by man? Of course not. Nor do I think that most people, upon hearing the phrase "physical laws of the universe," assume that the use of the term laws implies that those laws must have been created by an intelligence, even if they believe they were created by such an intelligence.

Didn't the laws of nature produce intelligence?

Which laws of nature don't show intelligence behind them?

There may have been an intelligence behind them, but none of them inherently show intelligence.

At its base, your argument boils down to that any sort of order must come from intelligence.

It depends on the magnitude of the intelligence.
You will not find a scientist giving a speech before his peers that will deny the existence of the possibility of God.
The problem is that nobody wants to watch any scientific speech for an hour,

I don't think that the magnitude of intelligence affects the fact that the laws of nature do not inherently show intelligence.

I agree that most people don't want to spend a long time watching scientific speeches (or speeches of any kind, probably).

 

[sealybobo]

There may have been an intelligence behind them, but none of them inherently show intelligence.

At its base, your argument boils down to that any sort of order must come from intelligence.

It depends on the magnitude of the intelligence.
You will not find a scientist giving a speech before his peers that will deny the existence of the possibility of God.
The problem is that nobody wants to watch any scientific speech for an hour,

I do. Love them. Better than a surmount.

You’ll never hear real scientists mention god in a scientific forum.

Yes you will; you simply don't watch the speeches.

Those are theists trying to make god a theory. It’s not. Still only a hypothesis

What you'll hear every atheist scientist say during a speech when having to admit the universe is mathematically impossible, "It's almost as if there were a God..."

I think the same thing. But until it reveals itself they are just hypothesizing

 

[Montrovant]

Ghosts. A soul. An afterlife. Reincarnation. Intelligent life other than humans. The Holocaust. A better mousetrap.

It seems you have switched from arguing about the concept of something to actually arguing about the something. Does that mean people argue against the existence of God instead of the concept of God?

Let's put that aside though, I have to disagree with you. Ghosts, A soul, An afterlife, Reincarnation, Intelligent life other than humans, The Holocaust or A better mousetrap do not come close to matching the magnitude and degree of opposition that belief in God evokes. It has no contemporary comparison. Just look at the disrespect.

You just asked for things people do not believe exist that the feel strongly about. You didn't say those things had to be as important or prevalent as the idea of god.

It goes back to Meriweather's point.

If atheists really believed God didn't exist they wouldn't be arguing like they do about it. It isn't enough for them not to believe in God, they want everyone not to believe in God.

And I disagree completely with that point. If they really believed a god existed, why would they argue one does not? Why would someone not argue about something they do not believe exists? If an adult were to honestly try to claim that Santa Claus exists, I would certainly argue the point. If an adult were to claim that dragons exist, I would argue the point.

Plenty of people have argued that speciation, or macro-evolution, does not exist, to bring up the evolution example. There are long, drawn out arguments about that very subject I've been involved in on this site.

I agree that many atheists probably want everyone to not believe in god. So what? People generally do want others to think the same way they do in an argument.

He’s trying to flip the script on us. Just the fact humans came up with it and held onto it for so long. If it were a lie wouldn’t we have shed the idea?

Well first of all we are shedding the idea and second, for thousands of years we’ve been forced to believe or keep quiet.

They can’t imagine we truly believe that the world would be better off without religions. They get a lot of joy from it so they can’t see it any other way

I haven't seen evidence that humanity is "shedding the idea" of a god or gods. Not in significant numbers, anyway.

 

[presonorek]

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?

No physical evidence that I know of. And yet there are billions of people who do believe in a God(s) through a large variety of religions. Maybe the better question is why do they believe in God when there's no hard evidence to base that belief on. Through out history ever since mankind has evolved enough to think of such things, people have believed in supernatural forces and created some some astounding places based on that strength. Egypt's pyramids for example, thousands of people helped build those things believing they would ascend to their version of an afterlife as a result of the work they did here on Earth. Or so some think anyway.

Some people believe grape taste better than orange without any proof. Perhaps humans just don't feel the need to prove their beliefs. They just believe things that they like to believe.

Some people believe orange taste better than grape without any proof. Which one is right? Which one is wrong?

Some people believe God exists without any proof. Perhaps humans just don't fee the need to prove their beliefs. They just believe things that they like to believe.

Some people believe God doesn't exist without any proof. Which one is right? Which one is wrong?

Orange? Grape? God exists? God doesn't exists? Does it really matter ?

We fight over the most trivial things sometimes.

 

[Indeependent]

It depends on the magnitude of the intelligence.
You will not find a scientist giving a speech before his peers that will deny the existence of the possibility of God.
The problem is that nobody wants to watch any scientific speech for an hour,

I do. Love them. Better than a surmount.

You’ll never hear real scientists mention god in a scientific forum.

Yes you will; you simply don't watch the speeches.

Those are theists trying to make god a theory. It’s not. Still only a hypothesis

What you'll hear every atheist scientist say during a speech when having to admit the universe is mathematically impossible, "It's almost as if there were a God..."

I think the same thing. But until it reveals itself they are just hypothesizing

I personally believe in God but a revelation would probably kill me.
I would never want to overtly bare my entire life and psyche to any being in my current lifetime.
It's one thing knowing God knows everything that goes on in creation, it's another actually having an experience akin to not having a nervous system blocking out what my senses can't handle.

 

[ding]

1. The reason that people argue about evolution/adaptation is because of the data that shows changes in populations over the course of thousands of years. People argue against the data that shows the evolution of a species. If the data showed no changes, then no one would be arguing evolution because there would be no evolution/adaptation to argue about.

2. No one has ever argued with someone over the contents of a book that did not exist.

I would guess that someone has argued of the contents of a book that did not exist at some point. There has probably been an author who died, and there were rumors that an unpublished book existed; fans of the author may then have argued over what the book would be about, or what would occur in it, even though that book may not have actually been more than rumor.

I'm not sure how this relates to god. The concept of a god clearly exists, so some argue for it or against it; were you trying to say that if the idea of god didn't exist, no one would be arguing about it?

People argue over things that they feel strongly about. Do you know of any other concept that people don't believe exists that they feel strongly about?

Ghosts. A soul. An afterlife. Reincarnation. Intelligent life other than humans. The Holocaust. A better mousetrap.

It seems you have switched from arguing about the concept of something to actually arguing about the something. Does that mean people argue against the existence of God instead of the concept of God?

Let's put that aside though, I have to disagree with you. Ghosts, A soul, An afterlife, Reincarnation, Intelligent life other than humans, The Holocaust or A better mousetrap do not come close to matching the magnitude and degree of opposition that belief in God evokes. It has no contemporary comparison. Just look at the disrespect.

There is no ‘disrespect’ in acknowledging the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, it’s simply acknowledging the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

And it isn’t ‘opposition’ to a belief in an omnipotent deity, it’s an opposition to the consequence of such belief: the arrogance, the ignorance, the hate, bigotry, and racism that manifest among far too many theists.

We see examples of that hate and bigotry in America daily, as theists seek to violate the rights and protected liberties of gay and transgender Americans, and discriminate against gay and transgender Americans in places of business.

Of course most theists do not harbor such bigotry and hate, and many speak out against it; indeed, the majority of gay and transgender Americans are persons of faith, illustrating the confused inconsistency of religious dogma, and the fact that religion and ‘god’ are indeed creations of man.

Cool story, bro.

You are going to have a hard time convincing me that what I see is wrong.

 

[presonorek]

Cool story, bro.

You are going to have a hard time convincing me that what I see is wrong.

Which part of the story was the coolest?

 

[Montrovant]

No.

So you are saying that a rule that operates within a particular sphere, describing or prescribing what is possible or allowable is not a sign of intelligence or thought?

Have you ever made a rule?

That I have made a rule does not mean that all rules are created by an intelligence. Nor does it mean the use of the word rule must be the same in all contexts.

I think law is the more commonly used word. The physical laws, laws of the universe, etc. Humanity has created many different laws. Does that mean that the laws that govern the universe are the same as the laws created by man? Of course not. Nor do I think that most people, upon hearing the phrase "physical laws of the universe," assume that the use of the term laws implies that those laws must have been created by an intelligence, even if they believe they were created by such an intelligence.

Didn't the laws of nature produce intelligence?

Which laws of nature don't show intelligence behind them?

There may have been an intelligence behind them, but none of them inherently show intelligence.

At its base, your argument boils down to that any sort of order must come from intelligence.

No, my argument is that this specific order has come from intelligence. That the laws of nature are such that beings that know and create (i.e. intelligence) were predestined to exist by very specific laws of nature in a very rich and complex fashion and that signs of intelligence are everywhere given the right conditions and enough time.

Collectively all laws of nature show signs of intelligence. The exact same pattern can be seen at every stage of the evolution of matter from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create. You have to look at it from the creation of space and time until now. You were literally present for the birth of space and time and since that time the matter and energy in your body has merely changed form. The universe literally became aware of itself and you don't believe there is intelligence behind that?

*I* am not simply the particles which make up my matter, regardless of if or how they are connected. So, no, I was not literally present for the birth of space and time.

"The universe literally became aware of itself"? Just as I was not at the birth of space and time, I am not the universe. At most I am an almost inconceivably small part of the universe. A star is a part of the universe, as well; are you going to claim a star is self-aware? Or put another way, I am self-aware. One of my skin cells is a part of me. Is that skin cell me? Is that skin cell self aware because I am self aware?

Again, the order of the universe may have come from an intelligence. There is no reason I am aware of that it must have, however.

 

[ding]

It seems you have switched from arguing about the concept of something to actually arguing about the something. Does that mean people argue against the existence of God instead of the concept of God?

Let's put that aside though, I have to disagree with you. Ghosts, A soul, An afterlife, Reincarnation, Intelligent life other than humans, The Holocaust or A better mousetrap do not come close to matching the magnitude and degree of opposition that belief in God evokes. It has no contemporary comparison. Just look at the disrespect.

You just asked for things people do not believe exist that the feel strongly about. You didn't say those things had to be as important or prevalent as the idea of god.

It goes back to Meriweather's point.

If atheists really believed God didn't exist they wouldn't be arguing like they do about it. It isn't enough for them not to believe in God, they want everyone not to believe in God.

And I disagree completely with that point. If they really believed a god existed, why would they argue one does not? Why would someone not argue about something they do not believe exists? If an adult were to honestly try to claim that Santa Claus exists, I would certainly argue the point. If an adult were to claim that dragons exist, I would argue the point.

Plenty of people have argued that speciation, or macro-evolution, does not exist, to bring up the evolution example. There are long, drawn out arguments about that very subject I've been involved in on this site.

I agree that many atheists probably want everyone to not believe in god. So what? People generally do want others to think the same way they do in an argument.

He’s trying to flip the script on us. Just the fact humans came up with it and held onto it for so long. If it were a lie wouldn’t we have shed the idea?

Well first of all we are shedding the idea and second, for thousands of years we’ve been forced to believe or keep quiet.

They can’t imagine we truly believe that the world would be better off without religions. They get a lot of joy from it so they can’t see it any other way

I haven't seen evidence that humanity is "shedding the idea" of a god or gods. Not in significant numbers, anyway.

Man is born with the need to worship something. The only choice they get is in choosing what they will worship.

 

[ding]

So you are saying that a rule that operates within a particular sphere, describing or prescribing what is possible or allowable is not a sign of intelligence or thought?

Have you ever made a rule?

That I have made a rule does not mean that all rules are created by an intelligence. Nor does it mean the use of the word rule must be the same in all contexts.

I think law is the more commonly used word. The physical laws, laws of the universe, etc. Humanity has created many different laws. Does that mean that the laws that govern the universe are the same as the laws created by man? Of course not. Nor do I think that most people, upon hearing the phrase "physical laws of the universe," assume that the use of the term laws implies that those laws must have been created by an intelligence, even if they believe they were created by such an intelligence.

Didn't the laws of nature produce intelligence?

Which laws of nature don't show intelligence behind them?

There may have been an intelligence behind them, but none of them inherently show intelligence.

At its base, your argument boils down to that any sort of order must come from intelligence.

No, my argument is that this specific order has come from intelligence. That the laws of nature are such that beings that know and create (i.e. intelligence) were predestined to exist by very specific laws of nature in a very rich and complex fashion and that signs of intelligence are everywhere given the right conditions and enough time.

Collectively all laws of nature show signs of intelligence. The exact same pattern can be seen at every stage of the evolution of matter from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create. You have to look at it from the creation of space and time until now. You were literally present for the birth of space and time and since that time the matter and energy in your body has merely changed form. The universe literally became aware of itself and you don't believe there is intelligence behind that?

*I* am not simply the particles which make up my matter, regardless of if or how they are connected. So, no, I was not literally present for the birth of space and time.

"The universe literally became aware of itself"? Just as I was not at the birth of space and time, I am not the universe. At most I am an almost inconceivably small part of the universe. A star is a part of the universe, as well; are you going to claim a star is self-aware? Or put another way, I am self-aware. One of my skin cells is a part of me. Is that skin cell me? Is that skin cell self aware because I am self aware?

Again, the order of the universe may have come from an intelligence. There is no reason I am aware of that it must have, however.

Were the matter and energy that make up who you are today created when space and time were created?