why are we here?
Atheist logic says omelettes (and human beings) just appear from nothing and for no reason.
Although this quote is quite worthy of my good blogging buddy Silence of Mind, it actually comes from John Branyan. We’ve been having this discussion on and off for a couple of days now, and as our current form of communication doesn’t seem able to generate any movement in the dialogue, I thought it would be useful to dedicate a post to the overarching question here: what do human beings understand about existence?
My answer is: very little. We are unimaginably tiny inhabitants on a speck of dust in an infinitely huge universe. We haven’t even started to explore our own solar system, which in itself is an unimaginably tiny speck on dust in even our tiny galaxy. So, when it comes to discussing existence, which has plagued the minds of philosophers and holy people from the very beginning of mere human existence, let’s remember that the vast body of knowledge we think we currently hold, is only a small part of a journey we are unlikely to complete.
So, bearing this in mind, it seems laughable to issue the false dilemmas of the kind Branyan is so keen on, such as:
Either the universe is intentional.
Or it isn’t. There is no third option.
There’s no third option because the two options are false. When we talk about ‘intention’ and ‘creation’ we are attempting to place existence in the same rigid and blinkered framework that philosophers have been struggling with forever. I think it’s immensely valuable to have these conversations, which are rooted in the very earliest belief systems of our species, but to continue to think they make sense seems more than a little naive.
The conversations that humans can most usefully have about our existence are ones that help understand what we are, what our motivations are, what our history is, and what our paths for the future could be. Religions are key to the foundations of these discussions, because they are in the very bricks that kickstarted our civilisations. They provided cohesion and formalised moral codes to help make stable societies.
But in light of the knowledge we now hold about ourselves, we have to be honest that religions were generally created by humans in times of relevant ignorance, their success is easily explained by the psychological and practical benefits they had, and that there is a complete lack of measurable evidence that any of these gods ever existed.
Some atheists think that existence appeared from nowhere, and some may well think it was for no reason. But I suspect that many atheists are like me, and think these questions which are framed by our religious past, are of absolutely no relevance.
We know we exist, we know there are things about this existence that are sublimely wonderful and worth developing to make our lives, the lives of any offspring we have, as enjoyable as possible. In fact, I also think that even just so that lovely things like trees are growing, even if no sentient being is there to enjoy them or reap the benefit of them, it would be worthwhile protecting this planet. Because maybe there are no reasons we will ever comprehend.
“Why?” really is a bad question.
It is even a nonsensical question for theists. They have an answer of sorts: Because it pleases the Lord.
However, that simply elevates the absurdity. Can the complete-in-itself, necessary being have its reasons?
It simply is as it is.
And there we are, back at square one.
LikeLike
Good points, Keith. I’ve asked theists to answer the question, Why create? and none have been able to provide a satisfactory answer. The best that can be proffered is bonum diffusivum sui (goodness spilled out, an overflow), but this is so contradictory to the claims then attached to the Creator that it can’t stand without libraries of accompanying excuses, theodicies.
LikeLike
Out into what, I always wonder?
All this language is analog – God didn’t create the universe just like a potter creates a vase. Creation, as we do and understand it, requires a context. But God has no context within which to create.
So, theologians say God ‘did’ something like what we do when we create, but not really.
OK. So what did God ‘do’ (when God formed an intention outside of time, and acted without locality or identity)?
All of this work to claim a miracle. Just claim it and be done, without devising a miracle-theory to justify it.
Such theories must always fail, else the miracle fails, because miracles are always preferred or not, and never known.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It simply is as it is.” I suggested that existence could operate on a similar level. Bounced off his blinkers.
LikeLike
The reason why there is something rather than nothing is because of The Mother of All Wet Paint Signs: an uncreated aseitic being cannot not be.
Unable to die, powerless to be no more, incapable of even experiencing the thrill of the fear of approaching annihilation, is it not inevitable that an uncreated aseitic being—God—would come, eventually, to focus His impossible powers to contrive artificial environments inside which profoundly ignorant avatars could be cultivated and grown to probe and explore this extraordinary curiosity; evolving surrogates through whom He, the Creator, could taste the fear He alone could never experience, feel the suffering He alone could never know, and meet every pedigree of oblivion denied to Him by dying vicariously?
Is this no more unreasonable than a man walking to the top of a hill, or traversing a mountain range, or crossing an ocean just to see what was on the other side?
LikeLike
Hi Windbag,
You sorta left poor Violet abandoned. She’s been valiantly representing the godless position all by herself. She references you as one of her ‘best buddies’ and you’ve given her no support.
Awkward.
She retreated to this blog space to find answers to the questions she’s been asked. I give her credit for linking back though! No sneaky, secret posts from this one. She’s braver than you.
Maybe you can give Violet a reply to my two ‘false dilemmas’.
Intelligence arises from intelligence.
Intelligence is required to comprehend existence.
Just tell her why these statements are false and send her back to enlighten me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Intelligence arises from intelligence.”
is circular because each created intelligence needs a grandfather intelligence to create the one that created it. It’s not difficult.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Correct.
Intelligence arises from intelligence.
You agree with me.
(But that’s not what circular reasoning means.)
LikeLike
Just to make that clear – what intelligent thing made your god?
LikeLike
God, if he exists, is base reality.
The first cause. Creator of time and space. (That’s how he got the title ‘God’.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
What if another base reality exists? What if there are several base realities and other forms of existence that don’t incorporate time or space? What if there’s a ‘base reality’ creator? Would make sense, given that we observe ALL intelligence is created by intelligence. 🙂
LikeLike
Which brings us back to your point! It is really unfathomable for either you have an intelligent being that had no creator and came into existence out of nothing OR you have matter that came into existence out of nothing. Either way, it is impossible according to our known laws. Yet, here we are!
LikeLike
… you’ve missed the point where our ‘known laws’ when it comes to understanding the whole of existence probably don’t begin to explain anything. Which brings us back to the point that we can’t issue either/or statements about it.
LikeLike
I think our known laws help explain a lot, actually. Nothing comes from nothing..THAT much we all know. The atheist has a very good point when they say “How did god come from nothing?”The theist has a valid point when they question, “where did matter come from?”
Since we are here, logic dictates that it
has to be one of those or a combination of those.
LikeLike
Without seeming rude, I think that’s a great illustration of how limited we are as thinkers until a new concept comes along. It’s a feature of our history.
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂
LikeLike
God, if he exists, is base reality.
Ah, so you excuse your particular Middle Eastern god, Yhwh, from the rules of causality, but you rely utterly on the rules of causality being unbreakable or your argument is perfect nonsense.
Mmmmm… Can any children here see the rather brightly coloured problem in this reasoning?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Can any children here see where I mentioned any particular Middle Eastern god, Yhwh?
LikeLike
Ah, so you’re a Deist today, are you?
Okay, got it…
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter whether I’m a Deist, a muslim, a zoroastrian or a chimpanzee, you have not falsified my statements.
LikeLike
The Branyan-Diversionary-Song-And-Dance routine
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
The enlightened response to the claim that intelligence rises from intelligence is: “The Branyan-Diversionary-Song-And-Dance routine.”
Float that onto SOM’s blog and see if it shuts him down.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Unable to die, powerless to be no more, incapable of even experiencing the thrill of the fear of approaching annihilation, is it not inevitable that an uncreated aseitic being—God—would come, eventually, to focus His impossible powers to contrive artificial environments inside which profoundly ignorant avatars could be cultivated and grown to probe and explore this extraordinary curiosity; evolving surrogates through whom He, the Creator, could taste the fear He alone could never experience, feel the suffering He alone could never know, and meet every pedigree of oblivion denied to Him by dying vicariously?
Is this no more unreasonable than a man walking to the top of a hill, or traversing a mountain range, or crossing an ocean just to see what was on the other side?
LikeLike
“The Branyan-Diversionary-Song-And-Dance routine.”
LikeLike
Like these questions: What if another base reality exists? What if there are several base realities and other forms of existence that don’t incorporate time or space? What if there’s a ‘base reality’ creator? Would make sense, given that we observe ALL intelligence is created by intelligence.
LikeLike
I’ve not dismissed any of those possibilities. All I’ve suggested is that these are faith claims. They are not rooted in natural science. You’re talking religion now.
LikeLike
And so you are when you state the universe is either created or not.
LikeLike
Everything is either created or not created. If you have a third possibility for existence, I’d love to hear it.
(Maybe ask JZ. He’s been super helpful so far.)
LikeLike
I have. On several occasions. Existence is much more complex than your entirely limiting labels. Perhaps some things simply ‘are’ – you seem to accept your god is, so why not anything else? And once more, just because everything we have so far observed appears to follow these loose labels, doesn’t mean that the vast, vast universe is quite so simplistic. I’d be thoroughly surprised to find out it is (but I’m unlikely to find out, as is every other human).
LikeLike
I don’t “simply accept that God is”. I’ve deduced that God exists via reason and logic.
Everything is either created or not created. Complexity has nothing to do with this. Complex things are created or they aren’t. Simple things are created or they aren’t.
Despite your claims to the contrary, you have not offered a third possibility to falsify the thesis that “things are created intentionally, or they aren’t”.
If John Zande can’t help you (and he can’t) I suggest a Google search. It shouldn’t be difficult to find another atheist philosopher who offers a third (or forth, or infinity…) possible alternatives. Just paste the link and I’ll read it.
LikeLike
Why do I need another person to verify that our knowledge is a drop in the ocean, our labels are exceedingly limited, our brains are tiny and we don’t know the first things about the universe?
You’ve deduced the Christian god exists by reason and logic? Now I know I can google how you arrived at your conclusions.
“Everything is either created or not created.” Cave man logic.
LikeLike
But we know for sure that our knowledge is a drop in the ocean, our labels are exceedingly limited, our brains are tiny and we don’t know the first things about the universe.
This is certain, right?
LikeLike
Do you know anyone who’s been to Messier 82?
LikeLike
Nope.
LikeLike
How many planets are in our neighbourhood, our Solar System?
LikeLike
There are an infinite number of possible answers to that question. Right?
LikeLike
What’s at the bottom of our ocean? (magic edit)
LikeLike
The bottom of the ocean is too vast and mysterious that we cannot know if it even has a bottom.
LikeLike
You didn’t seem to grasp about the galaxy so I thought I’d point out things much closer that we don’t even know. Do you think you might suffer from typical human arrogance? I suspect someone of your disposition in the 12-century would have thought they know everything too.
Not to worry, as long as you have ‘proven’ your god exists with your brand of logic and reasoning, I can be sure I’m on the right track. 🙂
LikeLike
I’ve never suggested that I know everything. Quite the opposite, I asked you repeatedly to reveal the flaws in my statements. So far, the problem is I’m arrogant.
Are you arrogant for believing the ocean has a bottom?
Are you arrogant for believing you know how many planets exist in our solar system?
Are you arrogant for accusing me of arrogance?
LikeLike
The problem with your statement is that your options are too limited. I thought I covered that somewhere in the post and in the discussions. Here are some bullet points you can feel free to challenge with your reasoning or even ‘facts’ if you can find some.
– Humans don’t know enough about existence to conclude things are simply ‘created’ or ‘not created’.
– Existence is huge and we don’t even understand basic things about our own tiny planet.
– If your god existed without being created then any other kind of intelligent life could exist without being created.
LikeLike
Are you arrogant for saying my options are too limited?
LikeLike
Is there a history of human arrogance in recognising that we are unlikely to know much about existence? Or would you say the arrogance comes in being unable to recognise our huge gaps in knowledge?
LikeLike
I think I understand the problem.
I absolutely recognize huge gaps in our knowledge. I acknowledge that we don’t know much about how the universe works. We know almost nothing about how the universe came to be.
I guess we should just leave it here. We don’t know much.
We probably never will.
Cool?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Feel free to continue speculating, it’s one of the things we humans do best. But don’t issue false dilemmas as if they mean anything. Cool?
LikeLike
You keep using the word “created” like it actually means something here.
W ere humans “created,” or did we evolve?
If you believe we were created please supply evidence.
LikeLike
“Our knowledge is a drop in the ocean, our labels are exceedingly limited, our brains are tiny and we don’t know the first things about the universe.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
John Branyan, were humans “created”?
Yes or No…
LikeLike
Posing this as a ‘Yes/No’ question means that you agree things are either created or they are not. Please pass this information on to Violet. She won’t listen to me because I’m arrogant.
LikeLike
So you finally agree with me that it’s a stupid question! Hurrah!
LikeLike
Better check with John Zande. That’s not what I said at all.
LikeLike
John Branyan
Were humans, kangaroos, lizards, and birds “Created”?
Were they, or did they evolve on a planet circling a 3rd or 4th generation star?
Please answer the question…
LikeLike
According to our blog host, it would be arrogant to answer that question. My tiny human brain can’t fathom such mysteries. I will be unable to prove either answer beyond all doubt.
LikeLike
I’m glad you’re recognising the limits our understanding. But I suspect you still think you know the answer to these questions, and find it curious you don’t feel secure enough in your understanding to answer truthfully.
LikeLike
Even with your limited understanding of how the universe works, you still suspect you know what I’m thinking.
That seems pretty arrogant. 🙂
LikeLike
That seems like a game, rather than engaging in dialogue.
LikeLike
There are huge gaps in my knowledge.
I do not know how the universe came to exist.
I do not know if God exists.
I cannot even prove that I exist.
I cannot prove that I’m telling you the truth.
And it is very arrogant of me to assume that the above statements are true.
Thanks!
LikeLike
Feel free to continue speculating, it’s one of the things we humans do best. But don’t issue false dilemmas as if they mean anything. Thanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for permission to continue speculating!
I must warn you that my limited knowledge of the mysteries of the universe makes it impossible for me to know when I’ve issued a false dilemma.
LikeLike
But for the record, do you personally believe that humans were created in a distinct moment, or do you think the god you believe in simply kick-started the universe and his tool of evolution did the rest? It’s not an either/or question, if you have another answer I’ll be delighted to read it. 🙂
LikeLike
I believe our knowledge is a drop in the ocean, our labels are exceedingly limited, our brains are tiny and we don’t know the first things about the universe.
LikeLike
Why are you afraid of giving your opinion?
LikeLike
I gave my opinion.
LikeLike
Good. It has been a fruitful conversation in that case.
LikeLike
There’s no way we’ll ever know that.
LikeLike
You’ve just stated that your honest opinion is that you’ll never know. So unless you’re suggesting that you were lying … or was it a comedy moment?
So, wait, you’re still too afraid to answer the question?
LikeLike
There’s no way we’ll ever know if it was a fruitful conversation. The universe is too vast and complex. I can’t know anything for certain. Anything is possible (maybe).
LikeLike
I get your point. This is where Christians do tend to get dreadfully confused. I tried to cover this in the post too. While we are unlikely to ever understand the origins of existence, we do know quite a lot about ourselves and this particular planet.
It seems to me you initiate these discussions to try and get pat answers from non-believers so that at a certain point in the discussion you can make a formulaic point about atheism. Does that sound fair? Sort of like John Zande in reverse.
I think if you were interested in genuine dialogue, you’d be more than happy to answer a simple question about your own personal beliefs on the matter. I’m particularly interested in your opinion because you have a useful understanding of the Bible that shows you give its content and context careful consideration. I wondered if that extended to evolution and creation. But if you don’t feel comfortable answering and want to continue with your game, please feel free.
LikeLike
You have repeatedly accused me of arrogance for asserting a specific point of view. Now, you’re curious why I’m reluctant to give you a specific point of view?
Either we have the capacity to know things or we don’t. You have spent the last two days convincing me I don’t know enough about existence to offer you any absolute statements. Why are you now trying to talk me out of it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because your tone suggests you haven’t been convinced by my arguments. Assuming I’m correct in this assumption, why are you reluctant to answer a simple question about your personal beliefs?
LikeLike
Because I don’t want to be arrogant.
LikeLike
Fair enough, enjoy your games. I’m off to bed.
LikeLike
It seems to me you initiate these discussions to try and get pat answers from non-believers so that at a certain point in the discussion you can make a formulaic point about atheism. Does that sound fair? Sort of like John Zande in reverse.
Please. John Branyan keeps throwing out the word “created,” and if that is the central theme of his position then he should provide evidence. What has been created?
If he can demonstrate something has been created, his position holds merit and can be debated. If he cannot demonstrate a single thing in the universe to have been created, then his entire position is soup.
LikeLike
John Branyan
Were humans, kangaroos, lizards, and birds “Created”?
or did they evolve on a planet circling a 3rd or 4th generation star?
Please answer the question…
LikeLike
The question should be: “Were humans, kangaroos, lizards, and birds ‘Created’ or ‘Not Created’?
LikeLike
No, that is not the question.
Please answer the question.
Were humans and kangaroos created, or did they evolve?
LikeLike
Yes. That is the question.
The original statement (that I made one million years ago before we got lost in your windy posts) was ‘The universe exists intentionally or unintentionally.’
So your question, rewritten in proper format, would be:
“Were humans and kangaroos intentional, or unintentional?”
And my answer is: “Intentional”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Please answer the question.
Were humans and kangaroos created, or did they evolve?
LikeLike
What do you mean by ‘evolve’?
…sheesh. Violet needs to get a smarter champion.
LikeLike
As you can see, Violet, as per my earlier observation of the Branyan’s, the goal posts aren’t just liquid, but vapour in a cyclone. They both love Yhwh until loving Yhwh becomes untenable and embarrassing and impossible to stand by, at which time they jettison Yhwh and switch to the loosest of loose deistic notions… Only to claim then that was where they always were.
And here, on full display in glorious colour, profess Creationism, but when pressed on the matter, jettison it and switch to something impossibly vaporous, like guided evolution.
It’s a tiresome, boring dance.
LikeLike
Yowza! That’s another point for me! I hate running up the score but I’ve already pulled my starting players off the field. And I’m still racking up point after point after…
Quick search of the comment section will reveal that I’ve not mentioned creationism, Yhwh, Deism or evolution.
You don’t want to tell me by ‘evolved’ you mean ‘unguided’…right? Am I right?!! Of course I’m right!
And unguided means ‘unintentional’. So I stand by my answer.
And I take a bow because I’m singing and dancing circles around you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course, and you never used the word “created,” did you John Branyan?
LikeLike
I used the word ‘created’ many times.
I said everything is either ‘created’ or ‘NOT created’.
OR – if you prefer
‘intentional’ or ‘NOT intentional’
OR – if you prefer
‘guided’ or ‘NOT guided’
And then I asked you to tell me what you mean by ‘evolved’ and you didn’t reply.
LikeLike
Are bolide impacts intentional?
LikeLike
I learned from you and Violet that we just don’t know enough about the mysteries of the universe or existence to make definitive statements about bolide impacts. Such things may not even exist in the complex vastness of infinity. Who’s to say?
LikeLike
And there’s the evasion, now contradicting yourself from just a few comment earlier.
Branyan said
But now that becomes awkward, so it’s the Branyan Dance… Vapour in a cyclone.
Truly pathetic. You can’t even back yourself up.
LikeLike
“God, if he exists, is base reality.”
It takes a greater intelligence to begat an intelligence. Don’t be so hasty to abandon your mantra just because you arrived at your preferred destination. It can’t stop being true just because you don’t like the consequences.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You also believe in a base reality. You just don’t call it God.
LikeLike
“You also believe in a base reality. You just don’t call it God. ”
Making unsound assertions about what other people believe or don’t believe is not a helpful way of engaging in a discussion.
Your assertions also creates for you an unfortunate dilemma. My alleged belief is of the same value as yours and just as true. Which means your god simultaneously exists and does not exist. Or, you degrade my alleged belief to batshit crazy, dragging yours down too and render them both utterly wrong in which case we may as well convene to the pub and get smashed.
LikeLike
I’m not opposed to convening at the pub. I’ll even buy the first round.
My assertion is that the un-caused first cause of the universe is ‘God’. It exists outside of the universe and is not subject to the laws of the universe. It was not ‘created’ by the universe. That is ‘base reality’.
If you don’t believe in a base reality, then the origin of the universe is an infinite regress for you.
I cannot ‘prove’ this first cause exists.
I cannot ‘prove’ the nature of this first cause.
I cannot suggest a natural method for proving supernatural reality.
That’s why these discussions require faith.
And there’s no way either one of us could prove that the other is ‘batshit crazy’. 🙂
LikeLike
God, by definition is an uncaused, uncreated being.
You’re asking “when was this uncreated being created”… or who created this uncreated being.
That’s a strange question.
If God has always existed, then there was never a point that He never existed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I’m familiar with the man-made definition of your god. The question was in response to a statement that “Intelligence arises from intelligence.” – if you insist there is one exception, there can obviously be more.
LikeLike
It’s a definition that applies, regardless of who you think God is.
While there can be more, you have to work with the evidence that you have. And it suggests only ONE.
LikeLike
What evidence is that?
LikeLike
The universe, and the laws that govern it (the fact that space, time and matter had a beginning; fine tuning etc.) Human beings in relation to all other species… all living things are made of cell(s).
LikeLike
I’m not sure I do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How about you address the proposed reason for why there is somerthing rather than nothing?
LikeLiked by 1 person
But to answer your cognitively challenged proposition, before you move onto ther question before you… By your assertion, evolution should be proceeding in reverse, from the most intelligent to the least.
Is it?
No.
LikeLike
Actually, Windbag, YOUR assertion is that evolution proceeds from zero intelligence to greater intelligence.
My assertion is that when we see order, we assume an intelligence is behind it.
Omelettes always have cooks.
Just falsify that for Violet and send her back to enlighten me.
LikeLike
No. Evolutionary Theory holds that things became (become) more complex, therefore greater intelligence is birthed from some inferior (simpler) state of intelligence, and will continue to do so for just as long as there is enough energy in a system to do so. This is the historical corporeality of the world. No Alternative Facts required.
Now, how about you address the question before you… or are we about to see the Branyan-Diversionary-Song-And-Dance routine?
LikeLike
Your explanation of evolution is essentially the same as what I said.
Now, you should do what any good tutor would do, and correct your student’s error. My statements are NOT false. I think she’ll listen if this information comes from you.
LikeLike
An intelligence could only ever “create” something equal or less intelligent than itself.
That is not what we see in Eviolution.
So, we are seeing the Branyan-Diversionary-Song-And-Dance routine, huh?
Typical.
LikeLike
Correct.
The intelligence that created us is more intelligent than we are.
You still haven’t falsified the statement that intelligence arises from intelligence. You gonna leave your hapless student swimming in ignorance? At least teach her how to sing and dance!
LikeLike
Can you show that we’re created?
Oh dear, there’s that sound of your pantomime collapsing. Again.
So, the Branyan-Diversionary-Song-And-Dance routine?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can you show that we weren’t created.
Can you tell Violet what’s false about the statement that intelligence comes from intelligence?
LikeLike
Good. Grief.
You’re pathetic.
LikeLike
And atheism loses again to a pathetic, unfunny, deluded comedian.
LikeLike
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Unable to die, powerless to be no more, incapable of even experiencing the thrill of the fear of approaching annihilation, is it not inevitable that an uncreated aseitic being—God—would come, eventually, to focus His impossible powers to contrive artificial environments inside which profoundly ignorant avatars could be cultivated and grown to probe and explore this extraordinary curiosity; evolving surrogates through whom He, the Creator, could taste the fear He alone could never experience, feel the suffering He alone could never know, and meet every pedigree of oblivion denied to Him by dying vicariously?
Is this no more unreasonable than a man walking to the top of a hill, or traversing a mountain range, or crossing an ocean just to see what was on the other side?
LikeLike
I should clarify at this point that I consider Zande to be my student. I’ve educated him on a number of matters, including why theism is natural. So I find this aside suggesting he can explain away your erroneous thinking to be kind of odd. If you could stick to addressing the issues in the actual post, it would make this a ‘conversation’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“If a statement is not false, then it is true.”
If you can’t show your statement to be true, then it’s false.
” If you disagree it is up to you to falsify the claim.”
You falsified it when you denied your god could be created by an intelligence.
If you want your assertion to be adopted, you must support it and demonstrate it. Your failure to do that is all that is required to reject it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have just got come out and say this: you are all quite entertaining!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hard to be so when faced with such banality 😉
LikeLike
“You still haven’t falsified the statement that intelligence arises from intelligence. ”
You haven’t shown it to be true. It’s a circular statement that means nothing, there is no value in stating it ad nauseum. Failure to demonstrate it as true is good enough to not accept it as true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If a statement is not false, then it is true.
And this should be self-evident. Intelligence is a function of life. There are no examples of life rising from non-life.
If you disagree it is up to you to falsify the claim.
LikeLike
bah, reply went to wrong place, see up there ^^^^
LikeLike
Hmm, I see that even a fuller explanation hasn’t helped you. What do you make of the notion that there are many things human can’t understand? And I don’t seem mean simply in relation to imaginary gods, I mean facts about the universe (whether you think it was created or not). What do you make of the possibility that perhaps your understanding of intelligence making intelligence is exceedingly limited? And why are you happy to stop the cycle of intelligence making intelligence only at one point? I can’t understand how people get sold on such poor philosophy.
LikeLike
“Intelligence arises from intelligence.”
is circular because each created intelligence needs a grandfather intelligence to create the one that created it. It’s not difficult.
LikeLike
It’s fascinating that Christians are happy to stop the cycle at one particular god, but think nothing of laughing at the possibility of anything else stopping the cycle.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There you go again, assigning the ridiculous Atheist Article of Faith (everything just happened all by itself) to your opposition, to poor little Christian, moi.
I recommend studying ancient Greek philosophy.
The idea of “being” first appeared among the pre-Socratic philosophers over 2600 years ago.
It’s a very deep subject which led the ancient Greeks to the understanding that God, the Creator exists.
LikeLike
Thanks for popping by to give your opinion SOM. It’s clearly a topic that means a lot to you, and I did think of you as soon as I read the comment from Branyan. I think you’re more eloquent though.
LikeLike
It seems to me that Branyan’s statement is logical. Either the universe came into existence intentionally or it is random and unintentional. Each possibility has its own set of problems, but I don’t see what the third option would be.
I do like Violets attitude about it though! Live your life and don’t worry about it!
LikeLike
not random and not intentional.
LikeLike
What about my point about the size of our brains, the completely limited nature of our thinking and the immenseness of the universe? Either/or from us is laughable! It’s an open question, and the two options Branyan suggests are simply that, two options we can think of.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed, they are the two options we can think of. Granted, we have limitations in how we can think of this, but it does seem that any third or fourth option would have to consist of a combination of the the two options listed.
For example, perhaps the known universe WAS created by some advanced intelligent being, but it was an accident. In this case it would be random and intelligent. Or some advanced being or beings created the stuff that eventually came together in a big bang theory type of scenario and BOOM the universe we know was created. In this sense it would be random, but not necessarily intelligent.
No matter how you look at it, it is mind-boggling!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Makagutu, you mean that one option is that the universe has always existed, and never began? I think that is a valid option. Essentially what atheist and theists both believe is that something has always existed.
LikeLike
Yes, that is my meaning.
LikeLike
Jim, is the proposition that the universe didn’t come to be valid? Can that qualify as the third option.
LikeLike
that should read … come to be, valid?
It’s early morning here and I am still sleepy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We need also remember if the earth was one day old then humans have existed for about the last few seconds of that day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s more to the earth than humans, there’s more to existence than the earth. We’re obsessed with ourselves!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d also say that it is fully logical to believe either the universe is intentional or it is not. These are polar opposite views both of which could be true on there own but neither could be true at the same time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that these are two possibilities, but I expect the reality doesn’t fit with our understanding of life. Something along the lines of existence simply is … but much more complex than that. Our brains aren’t much bigger than those of mice, and the universe is infinite in size. It’s good to look for answers, but based on the history of human thinking, I can’t expect we’ll find answers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What’s your definition of the word logical in that context?
LikeLike
Simple. Logically the argument leaves 2 alternatives. A positive and a negative. Either we are a random happy accident or the universe was planned and designed. There under that idea would leave no room for a third view. Why? Because if it wasn’t created by some higher power aka intelligent design then all other arguments fall to the later part of the statement.
LikeLike
That’s not exactly how Aristotelian logic works 🙂
Instead of using ideas assign variables to them, that’s the easiest way of checking it all makes sense.
LikeLike
It is either positive the universe is intelligent design or negative thatb
Is not.
Simple binary on or off logical assignments made next argument?
LikeLike
That sounds like Pascal’s Wager- which isn’t exactly rigorous.
LikeLike
Does it matter or do you have a point? I’ve explained my statement very clearly I believe. I know english is my 4th language but i believe I was clear enough to understand. If not sorry but I’m done explaining I won’t tie up violets board with further nonsense.
LikeLike
The point is the two positions are not equal. A negative does not have to be proven. And having a tantrum here won’t make your argument look any better.
LikeLike
It is not a tantrum you’ve point blank failed to disprove my statement and instead spew nonsense. The statement stands as stated feel free to actually try and disprove it. See ya.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry about Pink, Michelle. He likes to think he’s clever and apparently has to lurk around blogs annoying people to do so. 🙂
LikeLike
No worries violet his lack of reasonable argument is annoying and shameful to his supposed intellect. 🙂
LikeLike
Pink ain’t very smart is she 4 or 5 years old?
LikeLike
When making a logical argument you have to set out an actual argument.
To make an equivalency you have to first demonstrate how you arrived at the conclusion that the universe was or was not created by a god. Just saying the two positions are equal because they’re opposed to each other is a false equivalency- which is idiotic on its face. It’s like saying that the argument the earth is flat is the equivalent to the argument the earth is not flat.
Idiot.
LikeLike
Awww now the little pinkie needs to name call.
I presented the logic you’ve still not proven the statement to be illogical but your tiny brain is working so hard I’ll give you another chance.
I didn’t present any argument. I presented a statement and declared it logical in its conclusion. There is your tiny brain hint.
LikeLike
A statement that’s not based in logic. What evidence do you have to support *any* argument for a universe created by a god of any kind?
LikeLike
I never made such a statement. Strike two little pinkie. Care to swing again?
LikeLike
Michelle Styles on February 21, 2017 at 2:08 pm said:
I’d also say that it is fully logical to believe either the universe is intentional or it is not.
LikeLike
That is not a statement that i believe either way. It is a clear reference to a statement made in the post.
Strike 3. You’re out sir cya.
LikeLike
The problem is, oh genius, that the two aren’t equivalent positions. The default position in logic is zero. Unproven is zero. Atheism is zero, rather than an active position. That’s why the two things can’t be considered equal.
LikeLike
1 There doesn’t need to be a god for intentional design
2 Atheism as you put it could still believe in intentional design just not by a god. Perhaps advanced life forms with technology greater than ours so an atheist could still hold either position.
3 A devote religious person could hold the postion that the universe was created by god making a big bang and then the rest is random meaning a religious person could also take either position.
But you can feel free to swing again.
If you’re keeping track at home that is strike 4. I am being generous.
LikeLike
Your rhetorical manipulations are cute! “Your out”, “little”- keep going and you could join the Trump crowd.
LikeLike
Seeing how Trump won that’s a fair assessment of your debate performance Hillary.
LikeLike
PS There doesn’t have to be a god involved for necessity of believing in the universe being intentional. As you can or should clearly see i made no mention of god nor of my position on the subject. Guess you missed that too
LikeLike
Really? What sort of intentionality is it? If not a god then…?
LikeLike
Advanced alien life form. Already explained below. Strike 5. Damn I’d say you’ve entered falcon territory now but you’ve never been ahead in this discussion.
LikeLike
We today can’t duplicate the pyramids in precision or time of construction. Why would we pretend to know how, who, or what created the universe. /smh
LikeLike
But you understand that’s speculation rather than an argument from evidence, right? That’s why the 2 positions can’t be treated as equivalent from a logical perspective.
LikeLike
The positions are a statement of conclusions not the base argument themselves. You can only hold one or the other position. That is the simple logical statement of conclusion.
0 for 6.
LikeLike
You can award yourself as many points as you like. That is in fact the Trump method. The problem is that doesn’t change mathematics or logic- or the need for evidence to support an argument. Chemotherapy treats cancer, lighting a candle doesn’t. So no matter how many points the candle lighter awards themselves, the candle still won’t make a tumour shrink.
LikeLike
And I award points as you continue to fail. This game has become boring your intellectual capacity is not large enough to even bother with now. Anyone reading this will see you have failed to disprove the statement as logical in its conclusion.
Hyperbole seems to be your strength not debate. You aren’t even perspicacious enough to understand i quoted the conclusive point made in this article and made a contradictory conclusion to the authors point about its basis in logic.
I need no argument to discuss a conclusion previously draw. A conclusion that I choose to question and have discussion in a discerning manner with the original author about her position on that conclusion and its logical value.
You’ve proven time and again to not be astute enough to engage me in intellectual intercourse. Your lack of insightful understanding of the language and subject matter is boring to me. Enjoy your unlettered and illiterate state. I’m finished with your drivel.
LikeLike
Feel free though to present an opinion which proves the conclusion statement false.
LikeLike
I believe logicians are in agreement arguments aren’t built from conclusion statements backwards. It’s the other way around. We stick at zero until there is enough evidence to validate a point. Otherwise you can go anywhere with speculation.
Are angels responsible for “protecting” people? Do unicorns make rainbows?
LikeLike
Again prove the conclusion wrong with a counter view that is neither. It can’t be done. Because the state was the universe was either intentional or it was not.
Since you can’t prove the conclusion wrong then none of the preface arguments matter now do they.
Besides every argument to attempt to prove will attempt to prove one of the two sides on the conclusion.
Again feel free to propose an argument which would prove the conclusion statement wrong. As a conclusive statement it remains logically sound and you’ve yet to disprove the statement by any argument.
LikeLike
I don’t need to prove a negative. That’s foundational logic. The rigorous position to take is I stick to zero until there’s enough evidence to support a particular theory. The onus probandi must be on the active proposition. And it’s a dramatic proposition in the event of a creation argument because you’d have to lay out the entire history of the universe and attach a “creator” to the entire process. The complexity is such the proposition becomes absurd. A creator that created humans or atoms? A creator that created the big bang? Who created that creator? That’s why creation arguments are dismissed as primordially flawed- and we stick to zero.
LikeLike
PS the negative is the second half the statement. But you’re to dim witted to see it. /smh
LikeLike
Good luck in life! All things considered it’s looking like you’re going to need it.
LikeLike
Btw, super cute! Could you clarify the use of the word little? Is it intended to flatter? How about the random mention you supposedly speak more than English? What’s the intent?
That’s called rhetorical manipulation,. You’re trying to use things unrelated to the discussion to attempt to gain an (artificial) upper hand.
LikeLike
Nope i was attempting to ascertain you’re obvious confusion with my words. See I always first presume since English is not my first or even second or third language that perhaps my words were confusing or misspoke rather than assume ylurnontellectual capability was or should be the question.
You can take little anyway you like. You began the rhetoric with name calling and little describes the mind of those who must attack. You can’t seem to discuss a point, you misquote not only context but entire meanings of the discussion.
These things tell me you are incapable of rational, real or logical discussion. You can’t understand words, concepts or context as proven by your contributions to our discourse.
LikeLike
If we are the result of design it doesn’t automatically mean God. We (and the entire universe) could be the result of incredibly advanced beings with unfathomable technology, existing in a parallel universe, or alternate reality. We cannot perceive them because our own capabilities are so limited.
Of course, we might be the result of a unique set of fortuitous circumstances (in which case our existence is unbelievably precious and we should be doing more to care for our world and each other).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely! And maybe one day we’ll know. But given the history of humans to date, I’m not convinced.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also true.
It just means something or someone with power or insight > ours.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good points!
Some would say ‘God’ is an incredibly advanced being with unfathomable technology, existing in a parallel universe, or alternate reality. The only way we would ever perceive a being like that would be if he made himself known to us…like…I don’t know… But that would make us products of creative ‘intent’. The universe is ‘intentional’.
And if we are a set of fortuitous circumstances that would be ‘unintentional’. Circumstances do not make choices or have will.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And is that god Jesus? Does he speak Aramaic? Or is he Michelle’s Alien?
LikeLike
Your call.
LikeLike
So you’re happy with a creation theory, no matter who the creator is? That’s interesting.
LikeLike
I know!
I am profoundly interesting.
LikeLike
It makes it seem like your interest in religion/religious theory is for purely tribalistic purposes.
LikeLike
Your call.
LikeLike
What is it about your personal belief system that you’re terrified of stating in public? You retreat to ‘funny’ repeated statements in place of attempting to defend what you believe? I’d be interested to know what that achieves.
LikeLike
What can science tell us?
Evolution is fact.
The Big Bang Theory is about as far back as science can currently go .. I think.
If adults want to believe in a god … great. Who am I to say there isn’t one .. or loads of them?
But, please, keep it among yourselves. Go pray, or whatever you lot do …. over … there somewhere.
Leave the kids out of the grown-ups conversation until you have just a bit more evidence to show? let them be.
And please don’t threaten me or force women to behave the way you want, or invade my country or blow stuff up.
Oh, and in the meantime while we are waiting for this evidence can you ask your churches etc to pay taxes? If it turns out to be bona fide you can always apply for a tax refund/rebate next financial year, okay?
Fair enough?
Thanks awfully.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well done! That’s a lovely polite rant. I completely agree with you. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, where else would we be if we were not here?
If the wave on the ocean is intentional, then what was the intent behind it? To make waves? How could we possibly deduce, that a wave is intentional and created by intelligence, if we see no purpose behind it, if we are not aware of how it was created, or by whom? If we make up invisible pixies, who make waves because they enjoy making waves, we have provided an explanation to waves, but we have merely given the wave an imaginary explanation, that in turn would require an even bigger explanation. By claiming that such pixies are the ultimate explanation to everything about waves, we have merely succumbed to idiocy and we have totally and utterly failed to provide any evidence of the existance of the pixies. The fact that a wave exists, does not provide any evidence for the pixies, does it? In addition we do know, that waves are produced by the natural reasons of wind, form of seabed, currents, coriolis forces, and the gravitational pull of the moon. We really do not even need, an unnatural explanation by immaterial design, but even if we did not know anything about physics, we would be more honest in recognizing we simply do not know what causes the waves, than positing, that Poseidon, Jesus, or some other obscure andropomorphic character from mythology made them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Raut, you silly heathen, you’re not grasping how this game is played. Here, some examples:
Bolide impacts = unintentional (although without them we, mammals, wouldn’t be here, so that one’s a tad tricky.)
The GK(PID) mutation = INTENTIONAL! INTENTIONAL! INTENTIONAL! That, sir, is evidence of the Blessed One guiding evolution, yet hiding behind a wall of impenetrable naturalism… because he’s shy, a sort of Banksy of Biology.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If we make up invisible pixies, who make waves because they enjoy making waves, we have provided an explanation to waves, but we have merely given the wave an imaginary explanation, that in turn would require an even bigger explanation. By claiming that such pixies are the ultimate explanation to everything about waves, we have merely succumbed to idiocy”
Doh! That’s the problem with such idiocy. The further away it gets from the original source, the more profound it starts to sound. Oooh, the wisdom of our foremothers. We can’t disprove the invisible pixies exist so it must be true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am with you on the wacky dualities some Christians believe. The last couple of days I ended up in my own discussion with a Christian about morality.
He said there must be an objective morality. If there isn’t, everyone would do whatever they want!
I tried to explain how consequences and reaction lead to moral stances being generated, but he simply couldn’t even begin to grasp such a concept.
Banging my head against a wall would probably have been a more productive use of my time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am so sorry to say I know what you mean Jasonshaw. In my view there are no bad people, there are merely people who have mistaken about the reality. Some have more and more serious mistakes about it, but I would like to think anyone could be compelled by logic. However, some people are not into logic, nor do they necessarily have any tools to engage in logical thinking, at least not in every arena of thought and some though otherwise highly skilled in their use of logic make exeptions when the logic leads them too close to a conclusion that would challenge their emotional status. It is sad, and if something, that is what is going to be our demise as a species and possibly the demise of all living things on this planet.
I am thinking of a new approach. Since it is possible and not very difficult at all to explain how morality is formed to a little child, then it may be possible to use similarly simple expressions to convey the idea to a religious person, who simply does not have the skill set to engage this issue on an adult terminology and level. I fear however, that this may seem as patronizing, and/or condecending, and I really would not want to go there either, as it would be equally counterproductive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Christians love their false dilemmas | Christianity Simplified