painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
see... metaphysics not science.
wa:do
wa:do
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'm frankly amazed at how many people find his silly 'argument' coherent, much less meaningful.If the universe being designed implies a designer, then what designed the designer? If intelligence cannot evolve on its own, how can a superintelligence just pop into existence?
The problem here, my friend, is that you reify "laws of physics," which are no more than human attempts to describe observed regularities. Your second sentence devolves to: the universe is the way it is because it is the way it is. I'm not sure that's overly helpful ...Not in the sense of a God having designed it. It is, however, shaped by the laws of physics (where they apply).
I'm frankly amazed at how many people find his silly 'argument' coherent, much less meaningful.
What people fail to appreciate is that the argument from design, while neither 'scientific' nor an instance of compelling poof, is a fully reasonable inference. We live in an wonderfully and intriguingly creative universe. Why that is may well be unknowable, but it seems to me that there is something implied that warrants deep appreciation and awe.
Perhaps that says more about you than the argument at hand.I'm frankly surprised at how much you criticize things unfairly. I mean, really, I think it's funny that you call that argument "silly".
If intelligence cannot evolve on its own, how can a superintelligence just pop into existence?
Perhaps that says more about you than the argument at hand.
Let's see ...First:
Intelligence does not evolve on its own. Intelligence evolves in the context of a web of relationships and interdependencies that allow for complexity, including biochemical complexity.Second:
Evolution is in no way incompatible with the argument from design.Third:
There is absolutely nothing inherent in the argument from design that implies, much less necessitates, a 'superintelligence that just pops into existence.'Calling the argument silly was, if anything, kind.
What about the idea that "god" is an emergent property of the universe?
If the claim is that the universe is the result of natural laws in action, why can't the same be said for god?
Does "god" need to be separate from the universe, or even supernatural?
wa:do
The problem here, my friend, is that you reify "laws of physics," which are no more than human attempts to describe observed regularities. Your second sentence devolves to: the universe is the way it is because it is the way it is. I'm not sure that's overly helpful ...
As do I, but it never hurts to keep in mind the distinction between describe and explain.In other words, I put far more stock into man's ability to describe the status of our universe, using the language of science and mathematics, than I do in a supernatural being having created it for unknown reasons.
As do I, but it never hurts to keep in mind the distinction between describe and explain.
I'm frankly amazed at how many people find his silly 'argument' coherent, much less meaningful.
Or that perhaps "god" is those laws rather than simply creating them.
Of course it is.
1) I gather most folks do not see anything that convinces them the Universe was designed, right?
2) I gather most folks feel the human race is at a point in its development where we know enough to reasonably form an opinion on whether the Universe was designed, right?
3) most folks don't mind differences of opinion on whether the Universe was designed, but do object when people offer weak or illogical proofs that it was, right?