Annnoid, I am saying it is possible to conceive of (i.e. imagine) a universe which is governed by an intelligent agency.
You seem to be conflating two things.
So far, only humans, or systems built by humans can propose rules of system-beaviourthat explain observations. That is not the same as saying that the behaviour of the system needs an intelligence to prescribe it as opposed to describe it.
Arguing otherwise is "undergraduate 'shadows in the cave' pot-fuelled cod-philosophy"
…once again…that is not what I have argued.
R E A D!
I have argued that ALL the evidence supports the conclusion that some manner of intelligence is instantiated in reality.
Unless YOU can provide an example of something that can produce the phenomenal equivalent of ‘laws of physics’ that is NOT intelligent…then it is entirely reasonable to conclude that ONLY something that is described as ‘intelligent’ can possibly generate such a thing.
It is blatantly stupid to suggest that the laws of physics or whatever their equivalence is in nature could somehow be generated by something other than intelligence…
…when you cannot even begin to support this claim!
ALL the evidence supports my conclusions. Not only is your assertion nothing but blind speculation…ALL the evidence contradicts it!
…and then you actually have the nerve to describe my conclusions pejoratively! Come up with at least a shred of evidence to support your own wild fantasies…then you might actually have something more than a twig to stand on.
Daniel is under-thinking the whole thing; annnnoid is over-thinking it. Interesting how two different approaches result in the same "answer"- which, of course, is no answer at all, just a substitute for one; it's almost as if they're not really two different approaches at all.
ALL the evidence supports the conclusion that some variety of intelligence is instantiated in reality.
All…of…it! There is absolutely no where you can look where this evidence does not occur.
How does ‘all-of-it’ become ‘no-answer-at-all’?
…it is worth noting that it is YOUR evidence. I’m just connecting the dots that you all seem too much in denial to deal with.
Annnoid, please describe a universe which has nothing governing the behaviour of systems within it... In fact, please tell me how you would even describe anything as a system in such a universe.
If you can't - how can you say that the fact that, in our universe, systems tend to behave in certain ways is evidence of a guiding intelligence?
…because (for about the one millionth time)…ALL the evidence we have establishes a conclusive and exclusive link between what is known as ‘the laws of physics’ and ‘intelligence’. There is also an all-but conclusive causal link between the ‘laws of physics’ and ‘the laws of nature.’
Your dichotomy is not just false, it is not even incoherent. I’ll leave it to you to understand why.
And why not Buddha? Or the Fates?
How is this even remotely relevant?
No intellect is required to design the carbon atom.
This quite effectively sums up how utterly inane ALL of your arguments are.
I could spend the rest of my life listing things that have been designed by human beings. There are billions of them. Billions…and billions…and billions. The numbers are, quite literally, uncountable.
…and not a single one has NOT come from an intelligent agent. Not…one.
But when it comes to designing a carbon atom. A thing of such incomprehensible complexity that no-one even knows what it really is.
No intelligence required.
Your incoherence is only exceeded by your denial.
Daniel and annnnoid are both belaboring what is essentially the same attempted "gotcha!"- Daniel's is "you can't have creation without a Creator," while annnnoid is equivocating the word "law" between contexts to trumpet "you can't have (nature's) law without a law-giver!" Two creationist slogans that amount to the same crude circle...(damn it, now annnnoid's got me doing that meaningless ellipsis thing...)
Except that ALL the evidence leads to this conclusion.
…and…it is YOUR evidence.
Your response amounts to sticking your head in the dirt and pretending your own evidence says something other than what it indisputably says.
Here…I’ll repeat it for you:
You all somehow find it possible to argue that nothing about reality implicates intelligence…while at the very same time insisting that something (the laws of physics, the laws of nature, whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-them-it-?????) that could not be created WITHOUT intelligence (according to ANY conventional paradigm) is effectively instantiated in this very same reality.
Those are your claims. I just put them together. Your arguments amount to nothing more than…”…well…yeah…we did say those things, but for now we’ll just pretend we didn’t..”
AKA: Denial.
Indeed.
Machines are 'built' mostly by other machines, some with minimal human involvement. A fact that I'm sure you are well aware of.
But let's follow your logic (which I'll call
annnn
oid
logic, or
anol for short) ...
Who built the machines which (in part) built those machines?
(repeat as many times as necessary)
Who built the humans who in part built the machines?
Who built the humans who built the humans who built the machines?
(repeat as many times as necessary)
Who built the Homo X, the ancestor of the Homo sap. individuals who built ...?
(you get the idea)
Who built LUCA?
(etc)
LUCA was not intelligent/did not have the thing which annnnoid calls "intelligence" (I'm sure you agree, right?).
Which leads to: All your argument does is further support the conclusion that
ONLY NO intelligence
has the capacity is needed to generate such things as mathematics / laws.
Universe 10
n (n>8), annnnoid 0
…this is just plain embarrassing! I honestly cannot bring myself to even attempt to reply to this. I have encountered more substantive reasoning in a turtle.
I would suggest you go back to whatever university must have kicked you out and take a course in critical thinking. If this is what you refer to as ‘a discussion’, don’t expect any more replies from me.
I quite agree, but this isn't a very surprising or interesting thing. The surprising and interesting thing is how intelligence itself arose from something that doesn't possess intelligence.
...but we don’t know what intelligence arose from. Let alone how. It arose. That’s about all we know. Nobody even knows what intelligence is. It’s a normative definition. Nobody is going to deny that it is ‘something’…and something very substantial (cause it’s behind…just for example…everything that we call science). How it arose though is something that cannot be explicitly theorized until we can explicitly define it.
Probably a long way off.
…not to mention, that there are many both within and outside science who are coming to the conclusion that reality itself is intelligent. So…intelligence arose from intelligence.
You see the high-lighted phrase is where you are going wrong.
And this is your oft-repeated equivocation between two different meanings of the word "law"
Ok then Sherlock…what do your fellow skeptics mean when they say there are laws of nature?
What do they mean when they say nature describes, predicts, confirms…the laws of physics?
…is it all just a coincidence?
….IS…IT? …answer the damn question for once!
There are literally billions (no…not billions…more likely trillions) of examples of the successful application of these laws in science and technology. From the farthest reaches of the known universe right down to the most infinitesimally small element of known reality.
It all functions according to laws that YOU never stop arguing DO NOT EXIST!
Is it all just a coincidence? Are you actually going to argue that there are NO equivalent laws (of whatever phenomenology) that govern how reality occurs?
…cause if there isn’t…how in hell do we derive and confirm ALL of them from this very same reality? Your argument amounts to watching an artist stand in front of bridge and create a painting of the bridge...but you insist that there is no bridge there (for whatever reasons...doesn't matter).
That it’s all just luck that our laws work so damn well? If there is not something …not just equivalent…but explicitly equivalent in nature…how in hell do they all work so well? To the degree that we have not just billions of examples of them working…but (and I have no doubt that this is in now way an exaggeration)…trillions of examples!
Is this your argument?
EVERYTHING science does implicates equivalence of some kind in nature. EVERYTHING. There are trillions of pieces of evidence that confirm this.
