If there is a God...

[Indeependent]

You can either prove god or you can't.

To my standards? Yes.

To your standards? No. There is no proof you will accept. You aren't here for that.

Ya, but you lack critical thinking and have really, really low standards for proof. We all know that.

I see it the other way around, Taz. Especially since you practice critical theory.

He practices junior high school sarcasm.

 

[Taz]

I’ve been here for over 3 years and don’t have a reputation for being a snarky, useless asshole.

Let's have a vote.

 

[Indeependent]

I’ve been here for over 3 years and don’t have a reputation for being a snarky, useless asshole.

Let's have a vote.

Look at my ratings.

 

[Taz]

You can either prove god or you can't.

To my standards? Yes.

To your standards? No. There is no proof you will accept. You aren't here for that.

Ya, but you lack critical thinking and have really, really low standards for proof. We all know that.

I see it the other way around, Taz. Especially since you practice critical theory.

If my standards are so low, why can't you meet them?

 

[Indeependent]

You can either prove god or you can't.

To my standards? Yes.

To your standards? No. There is no proof you will accept. You aren't here for that.

Ya, but you lack critical thinking and have really, really low standards for proof. We all know that.

I see it the other way around, Taz. Especially since you practice critical theory.

If my standards are so low, why can't you meet them?

You still haven’t explained how a refrigerator works.

 

[Taz]

I’ve been here for over 3 years and don’t have a reputation for being a snarky, useless asshole.

Let's have a vote.

Look at my ratings.

So, lots of other fools with no proof here. What's your point?

 

[Taz]

You can either prove god or you can't.

To my standards? Yes.

To your standards? No. There is no proof you will accept. You aren't here for that.

Ya, but you lack critical thinking and have really, really low standards for proof. We all know that.

I see it the other way around, Taz. Especially since you practice critical theory.

If my standards are so low, why can't you meet them?

You still haven’t explained how a refrigerator works.

You plug it in. Now you know.

 

[Indeependent]

To my standards? Yes.

To your standards? No. There is no proof you will accept. You aren't here for that.

Ya, but you lack critical thinking and have really, really low standards for proof. We all know that.

I see it the other way around, Taz. Especially since you practice critical theory.

If my standards are so low, why can't you meet them?

You still haven’t explained how a refrigerator works.

You plug it in. Now you know.

Bye...

 

[ding]

You can either prove god or you can't.

To my standards? Yes.

To your standards? No. There is no proof you will accept. You aren't here for that.

Ya, but you lack critical thinking and have really, really low standards for proof. We all know that.

I see it the other way around, Taz. Especially since you practice critical theory.

If my standards are so low, why can't you meet them?

It is because they are so low, Taz. Don't kid yourself.

 

[Montrovant]

Not knowing how (or if) the universe began, I cannot say with any surety that the matter and energy which make me up today were created when space and time were created. It assumes that space and time were created, and that the matter and energy that make me up could not exist before space and time were created, and that the universe is a closed system.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

My point is not to promote any idea about the beginning of the universe, but merely to point out that my ignorance (and, most likely, humanity's ignorance) leaves open the possibility that our current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. It means that while it may seem likely that the matter and energy which of which I am made were created at the beginning of the universe, that might not be the case. I try not to make declarative statements about these sorts of questions, although I do fail in that from time to time.

You could say the exact same thing about the origin of intelligence. That your ignorance leaves open the possibility that your current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. Which means that while it may seem likely that intelligence was a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, that might not be the case. That intelligence, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

My point here is that if you profess ignorance about things you have good reason to believe in - such as the universe having a beginning and the Laws of Nature - why aren't you professing ignorance about things you have less certainty about?

Do I have good reason to believe the universe had a beginning? Someone posted an article about a model created which would indicate the universe had no beginning, using some sort of "quantum correction terms." Should I believe that, or not? I honestly have no idea. I simply do not know the science behind it nearly well enough to make any sort of determination.

As to the origin of intelligence, where have I claimed not to be ignorant about that? I don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence. What I have said, and continue to say, is that the mere existence of intelligence (or of life, or of the universe itself) is poor evidence for the existence of a god or gods. If I do not know how something came into being, how can I say whether it required intelligence to happen?

 

[ding]

Not knowing how (or if) the universe began, I cannot say with any surety that the matter and energy which make me up today were created when space and time were created. It assumes that space and time were created, and that the matter and energy that make me up could not exist before space and time were created, and that the universe is a closed system.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

My point is not to promote any idea about the beginning of the universe, but merely to point out that my ignorance (and, most likely, humanity's ignorance) leaves open the possibility that our current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. It means that while it may seem likely that the matter and energy which of which I am made were created at the beginning of the universe, that might not be the case. I try not to make declarative statements about these sorts of questions, although I do fail in that from time to time.

You could say the exact same thing about the origin of intelligence. That your ignorance leaves open the possibility that your current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. Which means that while it may seem likely that intelligence was a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, that might not be the case. That intelligence, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

My point here is that if you profess ignorance about things you have good reason to believe in - such as the universe having a beginning and the Laws of Nature - why aren't you professing ignorance about things you have less certainty about?

Do I have good reason to believe the universe had a beginning? Someone posted an article about a model created which would indicate the universe had no beginning, using some sort of "quantum correction terms." Should I believe that, or not? I honestly have no idea. I simply do not know the science behind it nearly well enough to make any sort of determination.

As to the origin of intelligence, where have I claimed not to be ignorant about that? I don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence. What I have said, and continue to say, is that the mere existence of intelligence (or of life, or of the universe itself) is poor evidence for the existence of a god or gods. If I do not know how something came into being, how can I say whether it required intelligence to happen?

You are correct, in that you don't know enough about the origin of the universe to have an opinion on it.

And since you admitted that you don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence, you are ignorant on that as well, right? When you say you don't know something as you just did you are professing ignorance about it. So my point still stands. You are happy to plea ignorance on the origin of the universe which is something we know more about, yet willing to comment on the origin of intelligence, which is something you know less about. To say that the mere presence of intelligence is a poor reason for the existence of a god or gods, is wrong on two counts. A poor reason would be lack of intelligence. A good reason would be intelligence. And you are wrong that my argument is premised merely on the presence of intelligence.

 

[Taz]

Not knowing how (or if) the universe began, I cannot say with any surety that the matter and energy which make me up today were created when space and time were created. It assumes that space and time were created, and that the matter and energy that make me up could not exist before space and time were created, and that the universe is a closed system.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

My point is not to promote any idea about the beginning of the universe, but merely to point out that my ignorance (and, most likely, humanity's ignorance) leaves open the possibility that our current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. It means that while it may seem likely that the matter and energy which of which I am made were created at the beginning of the universe, that might not be the case. I try not to make declarative statements about these sorts of questions, although I do fail in that from time to time.

You could say the exact same thing about the origin of intelligence. That your ignorance leaves open the possibility that your current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. Which means that while it may seem likely that intelligence was a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, that might not be the case. That intelligence, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

My point here is that if you profess ignorance about things you have good reason to believe in - such as the universe having a beginning and the Laws of Nature - why aren't you professing ignorance about things you have less certainty about?

Do I have good reason to believe the universe had a beginning? Someone posted an article about a model created which would indicate the universe had no beginning, using some sort of "quantum correction terms." Should I believe that, or not? I honestly have no idea. I simply do not know the science behind it nearly well enough to make any sort of determination.

As to the origin of intelligence, where have I claimed not to be ignorant about that? I don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence. What I have said, and continue to say, is that the mere existence of intelligence (or of life, or of the universe itself) is poor evidence for the existence of a god or gods. If I do not know how something came into being, how can I say whether it required intelligence to happen?

You are correct, in that you don't know enough about the origin of the universe to have an opinion on it.

And since you admitted that you don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence, you are ignorant on that as well, right? When you say you don't know something as you just did you are professing ignorance about it. So my point still stands. You are happy to express ignorance on the origin of the universe which is something we know much about, yet willing to comment on the origin of intelligence, which is something you know less about.

What a condescending fool you are: "you don't know enough about the origin of the universe to have an opinion on it". Anyone can have an opinion on anything, regardless of knowledge, you've proved that already many times over on this board.

 

[ding]

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

My point is not to promote any idea about the beginning of the universe, but merely to point out that my ignorance (and, most likely, humanity's ignorance) leaves open the possibility that our current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. It means that while it may seem likely that the matter and energy which of which I am made were created at the beginning of the universe, that might not be the case. I try not to make declarative statements about these sorts of questions, although I do fail in that from time to time.

You could say the exact same thing about the origin of intelligence. That your ignorance leaves open the possibility that your current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. Which means that while it may seem likely that intelligence was a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, that might not be the case. That intelligence, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

My point here is that if you profess ignorance about things you have good reason to believe in - such as the universe having a beginning and the Laws of Nature - why aren't you professing ignorance about things you have less certainty about?

Do I have good reason to believe the universe had a beginning? Someone posted an article about a model created which would indicate the universe had no beginning, using some sort of "quantum correction terms." Should I believe that, or not? I honestly have no idea. I simply do not know the science behind it nearly well enough to make any sort of determination.

As to the origin of intelligence, where have I claimed not to be ignorant about that? I don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence. What I have said, and continue to say, is that the mere existence of intelligence (or of life, or of the universe itself) is poor evidence for the existence of a god or gods. If I do not know how something came into being, how can I say whether it required intelligence to happen?

You are correct, in that you don't know enough about the origin of the universe to have an opinion on it.

And since you admitted that you don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence, you are ignorant on that as well, right? When you say you don't know something as you just did you are professing ignorance about it. So my point still stands. You are happy to express ignorance on the origin of the universe which is something we know much about, yet willing to comment on the origin of intelligence, which is something you know less about.

What a condescending fool you are: "you don't know enough about the origin of the universe to have an opinion on it". Anyone can have an opinion on anything, regardless of knowledge, you've proved that already many times over on this board.

Those were his words, Taz.

At least he was honest about that.

 

[Montrovant]

Not knowing how (or if) the universe began, I cannot say with any surety that the matter and energy which make me up today were created when space and time were created. It assumes that space and time were created, and that the matter and energy that make me up could not exist before space and time were created, and that the universe is a closed system.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

My point is not to promote any idea about the beginning of the universe, but merely to point out that my ignorance (and, most likely, humanity's ignorance) leaves open the possibility that our current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. It means that while it may seem likely that the matter and energy which of which I am made were created at the beginning of the universe, that might not be the case. I try not to make declarative statements about these sorts of questions, although I do fail in that from time to time.

You could say the exact same thing about the origin of intelligence. That your ignorance leaves open the possibility that your current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. Which means that while it may seem likely that intelligence was a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, that might not be the case. That intelligence, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

My point here is that if you profess ignorance about things you have good reason to believe in - such as the universe having a beginning and the Laws of Nature - why aren't you professing ignorance about things you have less certainty about?

Do I have good reason to believe the universe had a beginning? Someone posted an article about a model created which would indicate the universe had no beginning, using some sort of "quantum correction terms." Should I believe that, or not? I honestly have no idea. I simply do not know the science behind it nearly well enough to make any sort of determination.

As to the origin of intelligence, where have I claimed not to be ignorant about that? I don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence. What I have said, and continue to say, is that the mere existence of intelligence (or of life, or of the universe itself) is poor evidence for the existence of a god or gods. If I do not know how something came into being, how can I say whether it required intelligence to happen?

You are correct, in that you don't know enough about the origin of the universe to have an opinion on it.

And since you admitted that you don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence, you are ignorant on that as well, right? When you say you don't know something as you just did you are professing ignorance about it. So my point still stands. You are happy to plea ignorance on the origin of the universe which is something we know more about, yet willing to comment on the origin of intelligence, which is something you know less about. To say that the mere presence of intelligence is a poor reason for the existence of a god or gods, is wrong on two counts. A poor reason would be lack of intelligence. A good reason would be intelligence. And you are wrong that my argument is premised merely on the presence of intelligence.

What, specifically, are you basing the argument that intelligence is a good evidence for the existence of a god on?

That I do not know how intelligence arose does not mean I cannot comment on the lack of evidence or logic in a claim that the existence of intelligence requires another intelligence to have created it.

 

[Taz]

My point is not to promote any idea about the beginning of the universe, but merely to point out that my ignorance (and, most likely, humanity's ignorance) leaves open the possibility that our current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. It means that while it may seem likely that the matter and energy which of which I am made were created at the beginning of the universe, that might not be the case. I try not to make declarative statements about these sorts of questions, although I do fail in that from time to time.

You could say the exact same thing about the origin of intelligence. That your ignorance leaves open the possibility that your current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. Which means that while it may seem likely that intelligence was a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, that might not be the case. That intelligence, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

My point here is that if you profess ignorance about things you have good reason to believe in - such as the universe having a beginning and the Laws of Nature - why aren't you professing ignorance about things you have less certainty about?

Do I have good reason to believe the universe had a beginning? Someone posted an article about a model created which would indicate the universe had no beginning, using some sort of "quantum correction terms." Should I believe that, or not? I honestly have no idea. I simply do not know the science behind it nearly well enough to make any sort of determination.

As to the origin of intelligence, where have I claimed not to be ignorant about that? I don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence. What I have said, and continue to say, is that the mere existence of intelligence (or of life, or of the universe itself) is poor evidence for the existence of a god or gods. If I do not know how something came into being, how can I say whether it required intelligence to happen?

You are correct, in that you don't know enough about the origin of the universe to have an opinion on it.

And since you admitted that you don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence, you are ignorant on that as well, right? When you say you don't know something as you just did you are professing ignorance about it. So my point still stands. You are happy to express ignorance on the origin of the universe which is something we know much about, yet willing to comment on the origin of intelligence, which is something you know less about.

What a condescending fool you are: "you don't know enough about the origin of the universe to have an opinion on it". Anyone can have an opinion on anything, regardless of knowledge, you've proved that already many times over on this board.

Those were his words, Taz.

At least he was honest about that.

And you agreed with him,

 

[ding]

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

My point is not to promote any idea about the beginning of the universe, but merely to point out that my ignorance (and, most likely, humanity's ignorance) leaves open the possibility that our current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. It means that while it may seem likely that the matter and energy which of which I am made were created at the beginning of the universe, that might not be the case. I try not to make declarative statements about these sorts of questions, although I do fail in that from time to time.

You could say the exact same thing about the origin of intelligence. That your ignorance leaves open the possibility that your current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. Which means that while it may seem likely that intelligence was a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, that might not be the case. That intelligence, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

My point here is that if you profess ignorance about things you have good reason to believe in - such as the universe having a beginning and the Laws of Nature - why aren't you professing ignorance about things you have less certainty about?

Do I have good reason to believe the universe had a beginning? Someone posted an article about a model created which would indicate the universe had no beginning, using some sort of "quantum correction terms." Should I believe that, or not? I honestly have no idea. I simply do not know the science behind it nearly well enough to make any sort of determination.

As to the origin of intelligence, where have I claimed not to be ignorant about that? I don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence. What I have said, and continue to say, is that the mere existence of intelligence (or of life, or of the universe itself) is poor evidence for the existence of a god or gods. If I do not know how something came into being, how can I say whether it required intelligence to happen?

You are correct, in that you don't know enough about the origin of the universe to have an opinion on it.

And since you admitted that you don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence, you are ignorant on that as well, right? When you say you don't know something as you just did you are professing ignorance about it. So my point still stands. You are happy to plea ignorance on the origin of the universe which is something we know more about, yet willing to comment on the origin of intelligence, which is something you know less about. To say that the mere presence of intelligence is a poor reason for the existence of a god or gods, is wrong on two counts. A poor reason would be lack of intelligence. A good reason would be intelligence. And you are wrong that my argument is premised merely on the presence of intelligence.

What, specifically, are you basing the argument that intelligence is a good evidence for the existence of a god on?

That I do not know how intelligence arose does not mean I cannot comment on the lack of evidence or logic in a claim that the existence of intelligence requires another intelligence to have created it.

What evidence are you basing your belief that intelligence does not necessarily come from intelligence?

My evidence is that we create intelligence in our creations: PLC logic, smart phones, any control system anywhere, smart cars, AI, do I need to go on? Reason and experience tell us that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. And you think this is flawed logic?

If you are ignorant about how intelligence arose then how would you know the logic is poor? I believe that intelligence is the purpose of space and time. That everything unfolded so that intelligence would eventually emerge because intelligence was written into the laws of nature for the express purpose of creating intelligence.

Can you name something more advanced or complicated than intelligence?

 

[ding]

You could say the exact same thing about the origin of intelligence. That your ignorance leaves open the possibility that your current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. Which means that while it may seem likely that intelligence was a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, that might not be the case. That intelligence, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

My point here is that if you profess ignorance about things you have good reason to believe in - such as the universe having a beginning and the Laws of Nature - why aren't you professing ignorance about things you have less certainty about?

Do I have good reason to believe the universe had a beginning? Someone posted an article about a model created which would indicate the universe had no beginning, using some sort of "quantum correction terms." Should I believe that, or not? I honestly have no idea. I simply do not know the science behind it nearly well enough to make any sort of determination.

As to the origin of intelligence, where have I claimed not to be ignorant about that? I don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence. What I have said, and continue to say, is that the mere existence of intelligence (or of life, or of the universe itself) is poor evidence for the existence of a god or gods. If I do not know how something came into being, how can I say whether it required intelligence to happen?

You are correct, in that you don't know enough about the origin of the universe to have an opinion on it.

And since you admitted that you don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence, you are ignorant on that as well, right? When you say you don't know something as you just did you are professing ignorance about it. So my point still stands. You are happy to express ignorance on the origin of the universe which is something we know much about, yet willing to comment on the origin of intelligence, which is something you know less about.

What a condescending fool you are: "you don't know enough about the origin of the universe to have an opinion on it". Anyone can have an opinion on anything, regardless of knowledge, you've proved that already many times over on this board.

Those were his words, Taz.

At least he was honest about that.

And you agreed with him,

Yes, I agreed with him/her that he/she did not have enough knowledge to discuss the origin of space and time.

 

[Montrovant]

Do I have good reason to believe the universe had a beginning? Someone posted an article about a model created which would indicate the universe had no beginning, using some sort of "quantum correction terms." Should I believe that, or not? I honestly have no idea. I simply do not know the science behind it nearly well enough to make any sort of determination.

As to the origin of intelligence, where have I claimed not to be ignorant about that? I don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence. What I have said, and continue to say, is that the mere existence of intelligence (or of life, or of the universe itself) is poor evidence for the existence of a god or gods. If I do not know how something came into being, how can I say whether it required intelligence to happen?

You are correct, in that you don't know enough about the origin of the universe to have an opinion on it.

And since you admitted that you don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence, you are ignorant on that as well, right? When you say you don't know something as you just did you are professing ignorance about it. So my point still stands. You are happy to express ignorance on the origin of the universe which is something we know much about, yet willing to comment on the origin of intelligence, which is something you know less about.

What a condescending fool you are: "you don't know enough about the origin of the universe to have an opinion on it". Anyone can have an opinion on anything, regardless of knowledge, you've proved that already many times over on this board.

Those were his words, Taz.

At least he was honest about that.

And you agreed with him,

Yes, I agreed with him/her that he/she did not have enough knowledge to discuss the origin of space and time.

Of course, that's not actually what I said. What I said was that I don't know enough about the possible origin of space and time to make a determination about it; in other words, I have no firm opinion on how space and time came about. That in no way means I cannot discuss it.

 

[ding]

"God exists", of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject.... Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature—namely, by effects."

 

[ding]

You are correct, in that you don't know enough about the origin of the universe to have an opinion on it.

And since you admitted that you don't know whether intelligence arose randomly or based on the actions of an intelligence, you are ignorant on that as well, right? When you say you don't know something as you just did you are professing ignorance about it. So my point still stands. You are happy to express ignorance on the origin of the universe which is something we know much about, yet willing to comment on the origin of intelligence, which is something you know less about.

What a condescending fool you are: "you don't know enough about the origin of the universe to have an opinion on it". Anyone can have an opinion on anything, regardless of knowledge, you've proved that already many times over on this board.

Those were his words, Taz.

At least he was honest about that.

And you agreed with him,

Yes, I agreed with him/her that he/she did not have enough knowledge to discuss the origin of space and time.

Of course, that's not actually what I said. What I said was that I don't know enough about the possible origin of space and time to make a determination about it; in other words, I have no firm opinion on how space and time came about. That in no way means I cannot discuss it.

You just can't discuss it intelligently. No shame in that.

I can. I've studied it.