Please demonstrate that the creation of our universe was driven by intellect.

[Levite]

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." ~ 1 Peter 3:15

But perhaps you're not a Christian theist?

Nope.

The burden of proof is not on the skeptic. It's rests squarely on the shoulders of the parties making the claim(s).

In other words, "I don't want to have to defend my position, I just want to criticize your position."

Nope.

 

[Quintessence]

If you don't wish to participate, please don't.

This isn't about me. This is about you. I asked you a question. What do you hope to gain from tearing other people's views to shreds? Why are you asking this question? Usually people who are genuinely interested in learning about other people's perspectives don't present it in such a challenging and confrontational manner. What is it that you're looking for with this thread, exactly?

However, if theists claim to believe that the universe was created by some sort of supernatural intelligence ... is it unreasonable for anyone else to ask them to explain their claims? Or might it be that when scrutinized, these beliefs boil down to a simple "personal litmus test?"

My apologies, but in my time here, people who create these kinds of confrontational threads tend to be disingenuous. They're not interested in mutual learning and understanding someone else's point of view; they're interested in shooting down anything and everything that others present because it's never good enough according to their litmus test. As Levite says, you appear to be here to criticize. That is not a good way to begin a productive conversation.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

So, what kind of presented evidence wouldn't be claimed evidence? Have you ever claimed evidence you never presented?

Claim is inherent in any presented evidence!
Sheeeesh!

The Bible claims that God created the heavens and the earth, doesn't it? Don't you sense the least bit of tension in turning around and citing the Bible as evidence for that same claim?

Try this: You are a member of a jury in a murder trial. The only evidence that the defense cites to support the notion that their client is innocent is their client's sworn statement that he is innocent.

I don't imagine you'd simply exclaim "Sheeeesh! Of course he's innocent! It says so in his sworn statement!"

...

Or would you?

 

[George-ananda]

Kind of a silly challenge because, after all, what evidence do you expect to be brought up of when the universe was created to support such a claim.

Cheers, Mate. Like the first 'PROOF' ever might just show up on an RF reply post to this thread challenge...LOL

I have already stated my position why I believe strongly that intelligence exists in the universe. In the end it just comes down to our own personal judgment on the evidence and argumentation. And then our judgment only holds sway over our jurisdiction of one person.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you offer any compelling reason that I ought to participate in a discussion about creation with someone who treats the views of others so contemptuously?

The title of your threat seems to assume that theists who believe God created the universe need to prove their claim to you. Can you offer any compelling reason that I ought to be interested in what you believe, or your judgment of what I believe?

The fact you posted in this thread kind of implies that you are interested, doesn't it? After all, nothing forced your hand to hit "post reply"... right?

Presumably, the only theists participating in this thread are the ones interested in the discussion. Any who aren't interested would have moved on.

 

[Quintessence]

It would probably be helpful if the OP provided an operational definition of intelligence. It is a nebulous word, with far too many definitions.

Or, if the OP made it clear that those presenting philosophies are allowed to define intelligence within the context of their ideas.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

This isn't about me. This is about you.

No. It isn't. Please review the thread's title again if you need to.

I asked you a question. What do you hope to gain from tearing other people's views to shreds?

By all means, start your own thread on the subject. If I opt to respond, where would I look for it? Is there a "neopagan" forum hereabouts?

Why are you asking this question?

Why not?

Usually people who are genuinely interested in learning about other people's perspectives don't present it in such a challenging and confrontational manner.

An open invitation to explain your theistic claims is "challenging and confrontational?" Please. Spare me.

What is it that you're looking for with this thread, exactly?

A well-argued response. Please note that this is not what you're offering.

My apologies, but in my time here, people who create these kinds of confrontational threads tend to be disingenuous. They're not interested in mutual learning and understanding someone else's point of view; they're interested in shooting down anything and everything that others present because it's never good enough according to their litmus test. As Levite says, you appear to be here to criticize. That is not a good way to begin a productive conversation.

(((ahem)))

My apologies, but in my time here, people who cannot offer an actual meat-n-potatoes response to the thread tend to whine and complain about being asked the question in the first place. They're not interested in examining the claims being made, or in risking a little scrutiny being applied to their belief system. They just want to attack the very act of asking questions. However, as this allows them to effectively excuse themselves (while offering up some irrelevant verbiage and simultaneously maintaining the fiction that they've settled the matter) it's a great way for them to end the conversation before it even gets started.

 

[Quintessence]

An open invitation to explain you theistic claims is "challenging and confrontational?" Please. Spare me.

I find it more than a little hard to believe that you interpret verbiage such as "unsubstantiated claims will be terminated with extreme prejudice ..." followed by that particular image as anything other than a confrontational challenge. Certainly the vast majority of readers are going to interpret it this way. How one frames a discussion is important. Perhaps you thought it was cute, but it comes across as challenging and confrontational rather than an invitation for respectful discussion. Those of us who are here for respectful discussion rather than to have things thrown through a paper shredder are going to be disinclined to participate.

I asked a very, very simple question to attempt to determine whether or not I wanted to present anything in your thread. The irony is, if you simply answered what was a very simple question, the conversation could have gotten started. Apparently asking why you are personally interested in asking this question is tantamount to pulling teeth. I'm not at all averse to scrutiny of my practices or beliefs. What I'm averse to is threads that are not created under the pretense of mutual learning and respectfulness, but instead things like "gotcha" games and, as you so put in your own OP, "terminating" others ideas with "extreme prejudice."

 

[NulliuSINverba]

It would probably be helpful if the OP provided an operational definition of intelligence. It is a nebulous word, with far too many definitions.

There's no need to shift that task to me. I'm not the one making the claim that the universe was created by an intelligence in the first place.

One of the reasons that I feel compelled to reject such claims is because the theists don't always offer up an operational definition of "intelligence." It is (as you've helpfully pointed out):

"... a nebulous word, with far too many definitions."

Or, if the OP made it clear that those presenting philosophies are allowed to define intelligence within the context of their ideas.

Bingo!

 

[Skwim]

The Bible claims that God created the heavens and the earth, doesn't it? Don't you sense the least bit of tension in turning around and citing the Bible as evidence for that same claim?

Re, "The Bible claims that . . ." Any statement of "fact," no matter what it is, (the engineering book says the drive shaft makes the wheels turn) can be considered a claim. So citing this engineering book as a source for my evidence that the drive shaft makes the wheels turn is legitimate. That you don't like my source is irrelevant.

Try this: You are a member of a jury in a murder trial. The only evidence that the defense cites to support the notion that their client is innocent is their client's sworn statement that he is innocent.

I don't imagine you'd simply exclaim "Sheeeesh! Of course he's innocent! It says so in his sworn statement!"

Any judgment as to the veracity of the statement is immaterial. What is material is that the client is, in fact, a source.

 

[Thruve]

Okay, using the Bible as my source of evidence:

Genesis 1 (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.*

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.*

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
​

* This shows what created the heavens (universe): god.
* Saying stuff shows the intelligence you're looking for: god

BAD TROLL.
BAD. BAD BAD BAD.


I say demonstrate that it wasn't.

 

[Levite]

The fact you posted in this thread kind of implies that you are interested, doesn't it? After all, nothing forced your hand to hit "post reply"... right?

Presumably, the only theists participating in this thread are the ones interested in the discussion. Any who aren't interested would have moved on.

Actually, the fact that I posted in the thread implies that I was annoyed by the OP's tone, and wished to give him the opportunity to change it, or demonstrate that his apparent lack of interest in views contrary to his own is in fact the case. The latter done, I am moving on.

 

[oldbadger]

As the discussion is (as you've conceded) beyond your grasp,

Ha ha! A bit beyond yours as well, matey! ..........
Creation of one little Universe! What a small minded idea....

Meanwhile, remind yourself that this thread was directed to those who claim to believe that intellect was the driving force behind creation.

Ha ha! I will, I promise. And meanwhile, remind yourself that belief (see above, you wrote it) is all about FAITH.
You want certitude demonstrated, don't you? Well, you can't have it.

See you......



oldbadger quite likes this!

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I find it more than a little hard to believe th--

More off-topic whining and complaining?

If you cannot (or will not) speak to the topic, please refrain from perpetually attacking the very act of offering it up.

Evidently, this thread isn't for you. That's OK. No one has a gun to your head.

 

[Thruve]

I think that fact we can't prove otherwise is intelligent in it's self >.>
Can't prove or disprove.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Ha ha! A bit beyond yours as well, matey! ..........
Creation of one little Universe! What a small minded idea....

You'll need to remind yourself that the claim in question (that the universe was created by an intelligence) isn't mine.

If you're willing to attack the belief systems of others as "small-minded" (and is that a tenet of Deism?) then you should aim your comments at the people making the claim.

I'm merely asking these people to support their claims. And I have insisted that they not answer an unsubstantiated claim with unsubstantiated claims. It's very simple.

...

Meanwhile, feel free to move the discussion to other universes. I suppose that'll be very interesting to a very limited, theoretically-minded audience. As a denizen of this universe, I'm perfectly content to limit the discussion to this universe.

Ha ha! I will, I promise. And meanwhile, remind yourself that belief (see above, you wrote it) is all about FAITH.
You want certitude demonstrated, don't you? Well, you can't have it.

See you......

Translation: "I cannot (or will not) offer up a rational argument to support the claim that the universe (or the multiverse for that matter) was created by intelligence."

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Nope.

Thank you for defining your position on this topic.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Nakosis answers a mystery with a mystery:

Kind of a silly challenge because, after all, what evidence do you expect to be brought up of when the universe was created to support such a claim.

Bravo. Haven't you vanished down an infinite regress of your own manufacture?

May I parse out your assertion? Correct me it this isn't essentially what you're saying:

1.) I believe that the universe was created by intelligence.
2.) I also believe that the universe itself was created to support the claim that it was created by intelligence. Hence ...
3.) Please see #1.

It may not be circular reasoning. It could be an oval.

However we do know that intelligence exist in the universe. And I think the problem is this idea of a cut-off for the creation of the universe.

Who is claiming that there is a cut-off for the creation of he universe again?

The universe is still being created.

Does that dovetail with Christian doctrine? Observe:

"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." ~ Genesis 2:1

Each moment is created.

See: "Unsubstantiated Claim."

Intelligence can be the cause of things.

No one is arguing that intelligence can facilitate results within the universe. What's being scrutinized here is the claim that a supernatural intelligence was the cause of all things.

Asking people to demonstrate it, really. They going to create a new universe for you?

If I were to assert that a thinking being in a rhinestone and sequin zoot suit created the universe ... shouldn't I be able to at least offer up some sort of a sane argument to defend my assertion? Or would it be acceptable for me to simply insist that you accept my claim as truth with nary a peep of protest?

However, intelligence exists in the universe. Intelligence causes things. Did intelligence cause our universe? It's possible.

I'm not arguing that it's impossible. I'm simply asking people who claim to know that this is the case to explain themselves.

Perhaps not provable but if man ever get to the point he can create universes we can show it's doable.

Perhaps. But I'm not asking for yet another creation. I'm asking for a rational explanation regarding the claims being made about this one.

So far, what I'm getting instead are endless variations of "How dare you ask that question?" or "Why should I bother answering?"

I predict that eventually someone will resort to: "You don't have a better explanation ... so shut up."

...

Meanwhile, the folks who've simply admitted that they have no rational argument to support their belief systems have at least stayed on topic and not been reduced to attacking the question itself. I think that's to be accorded an iota of respect for being honest.

The rest just seem to be adding more dirt atop the grave of what was an apparently untenable argument to begin with.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, the fact that I posted in the thread implies that I was annoyed by the OP's tone, and wished to give him the opportunity to change it, or demonstrate that his apparent lack of interest in views contrary to his own is in fact the case. The latter done, I am moving on.

... as you're free to do. I was just perplexed by your inherently conflicted approach of participating in the thread by repeatedly proclaiming that you're not interested in participating in the thread.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Re, "The Bible claims that . . ." Any statement of "fact," no matter what it is, (the engineering book says the drive shaft makes the wheels turn) can be considered a claim.

Feel free to correct me if the following isn't an accurate summary:

1.) You're already regarding the claim that "God created the heavens and the earth" as fact.
2.) You feel that any technical description of a known, mechanical process is merely "a claim?"

It appears that you're using the words "fact" and "claim" interchangeably. Do you feel that this reflects sound reasoning?

Undoubtedly, it a fact that drive shafts make some wheels turn. What if I were to state that it was a fact that wheels cannot turn without a drive shaft? Would you view that as a fact .. or a claim?

So citing this engineering book as a source for my evidence that the drive shaft makes the wheels turn is legitimate. That you don't like my source is irrelevant.

You don't need a book to demonstrate that drive shafts make wheels turn. Aside from the Bible's assertion that God created the heavens and the earth .. what do you have to work with? Are you going to pop the hood on the entire universe and show me the mechanism?

I can't help noting that if the Bible contained a comprehensive, nuts-'n-bolts explanation of the currently unknown mechanisms involved in the alleged creation ex nihilo of the universe, perhaps it'd be taken more seriously. And perhaps you'd have a valid analogy?

As it stands, I detect the whiff of fallacy in your argument. Just because your engineering book describes a known process, it does not follow that the Bible describes a known process. In fact, it's an account of what is best described as an unknown process.

...

And if I had a nickle for every time someone has pointed to a demonstrably man-made item (in this case, a drive shaft) to support the assertion that an item that isn't demonstrably man-made (the universe) was created ... I could probably buy this entire forum coffee and doughnuts.

Any judgment as to the veracity of the statement is immaterial. What is material is that the client is, in fact, a source.

So you'd acquit based solely on the defendant's assertion that they were innocent? Seriously?