But I can give you a nasty suck…
2 Likes
1 Like
Not sure this entirely true, though were it I don’t see your point sorry?
Well there are two scientific theories explaining it, though again I am not sure what overarching point you are making here?
Not sure that is true, but obviously some humans will always better comprehend the complexity of phenomena. The point is that complexity alone does not donate design at all, what indicates design is sufficient objective evidence, it is also true of course that things we know are designed also do not occur naturally. That’s why arguments like Paley’s watchmaker fallacy is so ironic, placing a watch in a natural setting to contrast it against nature, when he is arguing that all of nature is designed, as if he has failed to realise we know watches are designed because we have sufficient objective evidence they are, and they contrast with the natural surroundings of his argument precisely because like all designed things they do not occur in nature, they are man made.
Of course that is false. Let’s consider Kolmogorov complexity.
The Kolmogorov complexity of a string of text (like say “xgggbceduus…”) is the smallest possible description to specify the string to another person using a library of predefined universal descriptors.
In this case the “library of predefined universal descriptors” is just a fancy phrase for the alphabet.
Of course this number isn’t relative.
PS: nb4 - “that isn’t what I mean by complexity”, followed by the refusal to define what they mean.
3 Likes
Now - rolling up sleeves …. LET’s give this some meaning.
Going back to when I was in the Truth, I will use that as my basis.
X (marks the spot)
ggg (three times means emphasis and g is obviously “god”)
bce ( pssst easy-peasy the Old Testament written)
du (what you will be if you don’t understand the OT “duh” or “dumb”)
us (the special call out to those who hear and understand the hidden meaning in random letters generated by an atheist) 
2 Likes
Well “complex” might not be the best term here. The universe is evidence of creative intelligence, it can’t be evidence for anything else I think.
So “intelligence” is a better term than “complex” - IMHO.
Furthermore, intelligence is not causal, it can cause but is not itself a result of some other cause, it is the origin of cause, it causes.
Some claim the universe is deterministic, but if that’s true, then what is the origin of determinism? it can only be non-determinism, i.e intelligence.
So the first sentence is a circular reasoning fallacy, you’ve assumed your conclusion in your premise, and the second sentence is clearly an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Sorry but that’s not a very auspicious start, and again my apologies but this kind of irrational claims typify most theistic reasoning I encounter. Food for though perhaps, but I guess no one is obliged to be rational if they don’t want to.
Hardly, it is relative and subjective to call the universe complex, but it is simply wrong to call it intelligent.
Did you bet someone you couldn’t use the word cause 5 times in one sentence? Oh by the way, what caused me to write that? It seems intelligence (in all modesty) is causal.
I think you may have misunderstood determinism, or at least are making a facile representation of it there, but you would need to demonstrate some objective evidence for your assertion, not merely a false dichotomy fallacy. Ironically it is monotheistic belief that asserts we live in a deterministic universe, though some of them also make the contradictory claim we have “free will” of course. I don’t know how much autonomy evolved apes have. but the idea we have none would also need to be supported by sufficient objective evidence, and then you would need to demonstrate sufficient objective that this “fact” led to your assertion this must mean the universe required intelligence.
You just seem to be reeling off unevidenced conclusions from logical fallacies. The origins of the universe that we know of are the big bang, if you can see farther back than Planck time then please just link your published scientific papers on the subject, because there appears to be nothing on any global news channel?
Anyway since you are a theist I have a pretty standard question, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity? Or that any deity is even possible?
1 Like
So the first sentence is a circular reasoning fallacy, you’ve assumed your conclusion in your premise, and the second sentence is clearly an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Sorry but that’s not a very auspicious start, and again my apologies but this kind of irrational claims typify most theistic reasoning I encounter. Food for though perhaps, but I guess no one is obliged to be rational if they don’t want to.
The universe is (based on everything I’ve learned) rationally intelligible, attributing that to anything other than intelligence leads to a contradiction. One can only eliminate intent, intelligence by replacing it with material mechanism. However material mechanism is always attributed to laws, yet laws are attributable to what? more laws? This reasoning (reductionism) is futile, it masquerades to some as understanding but it isn’t.
Which part of this strikes you as irrational? It is very rational to infer an intelligent agency for what we observe, to infer material laws as being the reason there are material laws strikes me as irrational.
I think you may have misunderstood determinism, or at least are making a facile representation of it there, but you would need to demonstrate some objective evidence for your assertion, not merely a false dichotomy fallacy. Ironically it is monotheistic belief that asserts we live in a deterministic universe, though some of them also make the contradictory claim we have “free will” of course. I don’t know how much autonomy evolved apes have. but the idea we have none would also need to be supported by sufficient objective evidence, and then you would need to demonstrate sufficient objective that this “fact” led to your assertion this must mean the universe required intelligence.
No, I think I understand determinism, it underpins materialism, and the mathematical description of nature, science. To what would you attribute determinism? it can only be non-determinism.
As for “free will” it strikes me that this exists, will and intent exist (these are self evident to me anyway). Admitting that will, intent exists enables us to explain the presence of the universe without recourse to that universe, and is therefore a better, more rational explanation.
A thing cannot be an explanation for itself, not if we want explanations to be reductionist which in science they always are.
Now some, perhaps you, believe that (at least apparent) will and intent are consequential, the outcome of laws of nature and material processes but this is putting the cart before the horse, it makes more overall sense to me to posit that intent, will, directive agency is what led to the universe.
Anyway since you are a theist I have a pretty standard question, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity? Or that any deity is even possible?
The presence of the universe, a rationally intelligible universe is evidence. There cannot be a material explanation for the universe.
1 Like
I can see the point he’s making. Yes, General Relativity models gravity very well, but we don’t know if the mechanism it uses for gravity (the warping of spacetime by massive objects) is the actual mechanism. GR is a geometric theory and there are no forces involved. It’s also possible that gravity is an actual force like the electromagnetic force and is mediated by a gauge boson like the postulated graviton. So while we have a theory that accurately predicts the effects of gravity, we don’t know the underlying mechanism. Yet.
Well repeating the unevidenced claim won’t help?
You’re back to using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, no one need attribute it to anything in order to disbelieve your claim that it must be derived from intelligence.
Sigh, argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, I can replace it with I don’t know, and still disbelieve your claim.
Reduntant straw man, see above.
It is a basic principle of logic that nothing can be asserted as rational if it contains or is based on a known logical fallacy, you are using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, I linked an explanation of that fallacy.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, again, one more time then, I need not infer anything in order to disbelieve your unevidenced assertion the universe requires intelligence. The claim is yours, the burden of proof is entirely yours.
“the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.”
Then you are misrepresenting it as a “necessary” predication for atheism.
Self evident to me? Do you imagine that is an argument?
Than what? Your assumption that atheists must adhere completely to the notion of determinism? I already stated as plainly as I know how that I don’t know how much autonomy humans have, nor do you of course, unless you’re keeping it secret from the rest of the human world.
By using argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, so I wonder why you find such irrational notions compelling? Especially since you can demonstrate no objective evidence for any deity, let alone the specific one that according to your profile you believe is real? I don’t care what notions you think we are limited to, as i am free to disbelieve even in the absence of an alternative assumption, to claim otherwise as you keep doing is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Oh really? I’d ask you to demonstrate some objective evidence for this assertion, but I’m still waiting for you to answer my previous question.
Can I expect an answer to that at any point?
Well I suspect there was an overarching point beyond the actual claim, or else I’ve missed something? It’s impossible to measure the totality of what we don’t know of course, but so what?
1 Like
What is intelligent about two hydrogen atoms being attracted to one oxygen atom? Do you mean free floating universal intelligence? Something called intelligence just floating around in the universe. What are you talking about?
2 Likes
Let me focus on just these points of yours for the sake of expediency:
what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity? Or that any deity is even possible?
Answer: The presence of a rationally intelligible universe, very objective I’d say.
Oh really? I’d ask you to demonstrate some objective evidence for this assertion, but I’m still waiting for you to answer my previous question.
You wrote that in response to this that I wrote:
There cannot be a material explanation for the universe.
Material explanations are expressed in terms of things that already exist. Scientific explanations can only explain (predict) the future state of an existing system, they cannot explain the presence of a system from a prior state where there is no system.
The only way to explain the presence of the universe is in terms of something other than that universe.
One can certainly explain the state of the universe, its state here and there or at some past or future date, but one cannot explain its presence.
If you’re satisfied with a circular argument then that’s fine but I am not and I am not afraid to face the consequences of that line of reasoning.
Not to mention that these “laws” are also beliefs, nothing more.
1 Like
I can see the point he’s making. Yes, General Relativity models gravity very well, but we don’t know if the mechanism it uses for gravity (the warping of spacetime by massive objects) is the actual mechanism. GR is a geometric theory and there are no forces involved. It’s also possible that gravity is an actual force like the electromagnetic force and is mediated by a gauge boson like the postulated graviton. So while we have a theory that accurately predicts the effects of gravity, we don’t know the underlying mechanism. Yet.
Indeed, the phrase “space is curved” is just a characterization of nature. The equations of motion of a particle in a gravitational field just happen to look exactly like the equations describing geodesics in four dimensional non-Euclidean spaces.
It is astonishing. incredible but we can’t say “space is really curved” only that it looks like it is!
But my point is that if you look at any theory from theoretical physics, cosmology and so on, the theory is written down in terms of things that already exist - laws of nature.
How could one write down a theory explaining the presence of laws? we can’t explain the presence of the universe scientifically, because we require it to exist in order to explain how it came to exist. The only way to escape from this doomed straitjacket line of reasoning is to attribute the universe to an intent, a will, an intelligent agency, the agency is revealed to us by the presence of the universe.
John Barrow wrote about this a great deal, his book New Theories of Everything discusses these questions, also John Lennox too in the book God’s Undertaker.
1 Like
No. There’s no reason to postulate an intelligent agency just because we can’t currently explain how the universe came to exist purely in naturalistic terms. That’s a false dichotomy fallacy.
1 Like
What’s going on here…
The assertion is that science can not say what gravity is. This is correct. We have two wonderful theories about how gravity works. We can use these theories to put men on the moon and satellites to the edge of the known universe.
Science does not tell us what stuff is. It describes stuff that we see. It explains and predicts the world around us.
When science does not know something, it is referenced as a force. Electrical force, life force. Gravitational Force. We know how to predict, use, and explain these forces in relation to the world around us because of science. What are they?
What is electricity - the movement of electrons. What is an electron? Something with a property calle ‘charge.’ REFERENCE:
The problem with gravity is the same. Point is - Science does not tell us what stuff is. So what? Science is a method of inquiry into the nature of things. It is an understanding of what things are doing and how they work. Science is not making the claim, “We know what gravity is.”
The only one making a claim to know what something is, is the idiot asserting that it ‘IS’ intelligence. Or, that there ‘IS’ a creator being. The fact that science does not know something does not open the door for inane bullshit claims of supernatural origins.
Fact it this… If science does not know it “NEITHER DO YOU”
No. There’s no reason to postulate an intelligent agency just because we can’t currently explain how the universe came to exist purely in naturalistic terms. That’s a false dichotomy fallacy.
There’s every reason to postulate a non material agency when we’ve proven that there cannot have been a material cause. Purely naturalistic explanations are incapable of explaining how naturalistic processes came to exist.
This is not a question of “just because we can’t currently” the fact is that scientific explanations require that something already exists in order to provides the processes used in explanations.
Want to see the real scientific theory of everything? here it is:
Please give me one reason to postulate a non-material agency. Demonstrate the existence of a non-material agent. Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment. How do you have a non-material agent?
1 Like
It isn’t remotely objective obviously, it’s a subjective belief you hold, and you’re using another circular reasoning fallacy.
Ah, so an another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy then, when you claimed “There cannot be a material explanation for the universe.” it was pure assumption based on us not currently having one. Again this rationale is based on a known common logical fallacy, ipso facto it is demonstrably irrational.
Sigh, and you know this how exactly? The physical universe exists as an objective fact, natural phenomena exist as an objective fact, on what basis beyond an argument ad ignorantiam fallacy are you claiming to know there cannot be an as yet unknown material explanation for the universe? NB even for the sake of argument this doesn’t remotely evidence a deity you will note. You’ll be trotting out the KCA next.
Well you are free to find irrational arguments compelling in order to prop up a priori religious beliefs of course, but I lend no credence to irrational arguments of course.
What laws, you’ve lost me sorry?
Please give me one reason to postulate a non-material agency.
Sure, postulating a material agency is insufficient.
Demonstrate the existence of a non-material agent.
The universe exists and cannot be attributed to material causes (see above).
Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment. How do you have a non-material agent?
You want an answer in material, familiar terms? there is none, you cannot explain this materially so seeking one is futile.