We are all disregarding the fact that heat (black body radiation) is also following 2nd law of thermodynamics, without need for change in shape.
I know what @Kevin_Levites is trying to do and why he thinks about it. I also like to think about origins of the universe. However, I personally don’t think that this specific universe started from nothing. I think that this one started from previous very similar but possibly less energetic or complex. And previous one started from previous even more simpler, possibly smaller also.
Everything we see is product of change, I just can’t find reason to think that universe is any different.
I actually found something that will be of considerable interest to anyone on this forum . . . as well as a resource to steer Creationists to. Please see below:
It explores–at length–the various arguments that Creationists use to fight evolution in science education . . . and it does this without using a patronizing and/or dismissive tone.
Although it is mostly familiar territory for me, it is a good primer for the creationist jibber-jabber, which is usually so ridiculous as to be dismissed out-of-hand…Thanks Kevin
We can’t even create the basics of life in a lab. And when we explore it we realize more and more how little we know and how far we are from understanding it much less making it in a lab. We don’t even know what gravity is. I agree complexity is relative to the mind who beholds it.
Actually we can and have. The RNA (building blocks of life) were replicated in Japan and by several laboratories since.
The 10 million dollar research prize to produce a self replicating RNA is close (relatively) to demonstration.
No god(s) necessary
Again yes we do, your education needs some updating.
Thanks, Old Man, You beat me to it. I was also going to mention the latest discovery, membrane free cells - In recent years, the discovery of a new type of membrane-free cell, called a coacervate, has led to some ideas.
This throws a wrench into the idea that a cell must have a cell wall and somehow be autonomous from its surroundings.
NEXT - we have to have the guy define life. The division between living and non-living isn’t exactly clear.
I suspect we are going to find our latest chew toy very much lacking in education, except of course, a doctorate in “Youtube Research” …but we shall see. At least they are writing at a civilised hour so I can ask a few questions before the snarling, baying main pack descend on the fluffy carcass and rip it to bits.
Theist blood is amazingly sticky, almost thick…
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.
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)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
