• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
You'll need to remind yourself that the claim in question (that the universe was created by an intelligence) isn't mine.
I'll bet you kept failing your comprehension tests at school. :)
It was your OP, and you could only stretch your brainy bits as far as one single Universe. That's a bit like the mindsets of flat-Earthers in the last century.
So it was all yours. You're lovely! I like you! :D

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.
Oh Gawd ...... there's this idiot who props up the bar in the local and declares 'Nobody can sell me anything!' And then the barmaid says, 'Another, Charlie?' and he buys it! You remind me of him just a little. :)

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.
You're lovely...... on that basis, why don't you shift it to this solar system, or just the USA!
Look.... I like you so I'll be patient with you. You have to start at the beginning, and since we don't actually know where the beginning is, we're going to have a teensy weensy bit of trouble with all this demonstration of certitude.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
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?"
1) Not at all. In fact, as an agnostic I don't put any credence in the Bible at all.
2) Not "merely" at all. Any assertion, no matter what it is, amounts to a claim.

It appears that you're using the words "fact" and "claim" interchangeably.
Only to the extent that it is irrational to make a claim one didn't think is true (factual)---any attempt to deceive aside.

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?
Please note that in post #30 I put the term "fact" in quotation marks, indicating that it its truth is immaterial. If you made the statement in earnest then I would assume you believed it to be a fact---The truth of the matter aside---wheels can indeed turn without a drive shaft---is irrelevant. In your mind your assertion (claim) was the truth---a fact.


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?
You're ignoring the nature of your own request here.

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

Obviously no one is going to present some table-top exhibition, so the only reasonable interpretation of "demonstrate" is
noun
1. the act or circumstance of proving or being proved conclusively, as by reasoning or a show of evidence

which is what I've attempted to do; use reason to show that the Bible qualifies as a source for an answer to your challenge; The Bible states that . . . . . .

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?
It's irrelevant. As I say, I don't buy the Bibles explanation; however, that doesn't make it any less an explanation--- the reason--a claim--a"fact" as presented by its authors.

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.
Nope it doesn't, but that doesn't mean it's not an explanation--- the reason--a claim--a"fact" as presented by its authors.

So you'd acquit based solely on the defendant's assertion that they were innocent? Seriously?
What I'd do is irrelevant.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
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?
"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?
His username is 'Levite' and his religion is listed as Jewish. You might have noticed this were you not so enamored by your own pomposity.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
It might have been space aliens, but I don't know.

I reckon that our universe forms a tiny part of a single atom within a molecule which lies within the trachea of a softwood pine leg in a table. There is a bloke sitting at this table and getting merrily canned on a form of lager, wondering what the hell it's all about, and the OP wants me to offer a serious presentation, offering a demonstration of all this...........
......... not asking much, then....... :)



Mrs B thinks old-B should come back to bed.
 

NulliuSINverba

Active Member
His username is 'Levite' and his religion is listed as Jewish. You might have noticed this were you not so enamored by your own pomposity.

You're sorely off-topic, my friend. To say nothing of "totally presumptuous." You'll notice that I went out of my way to leave room for the fact that he wasn't a Christian. Observe:

NulliuSINverba said:
But perhaps you're not a Christian theist?

I await your next totally essential, off-topic non-answer with bated breath.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Nakosis answers a mystery with a mystery:
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.

Actually I was just pointing out it is easy to issue a challenge that you already know is impossible to answer. Where's the risk in that?

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

Often assumed in such arguments, just wanted to find out whether it was being assumed here.

Does that dovetail with Christian doctrine? Observe:

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

Hence the assumption.

See: "Unsubstantiated Claim."

My actions, choices together with everything else in the universe work together to cause the next moment to exist. Certainly my actions and choices as well as your actions and choice play its part, however small in the creation of the next moment. You have reason to not believe this?

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.

Should we at least examine the possibility? If we can determine there is no such possibility there's no need to ask the question.

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?

What are you offering? I think that is the biggest problem. The inability to satisfactorily demonstrate an alternative. If could be shown they'd stop speculating.

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.

Ok, but is rather obvious nobody knows. Even people who claim authority for the Bible, they still just make stuff up to fill in the gaps. Like I said, pretty much a no risk challenge.

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?"

Perhaps, try living with a bit more danger. Issue a challenge which could actually be beaten.

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

That's why I make statements or claims, to see if someone has a better explanation
.
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.

You did? Great, that's a bit impressive. They learned something. Did you learn anything? Rare I get to learn something new but it's priceless when it happens.

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

Sorry, yes I attacked the question hoping some, if they didn't already see it, understood the impossibility of beating the challenge.

Unless you think Skwim proved me wrong. Maybe he did.
 

NulliuSINverba

Active Member
I'll bet you kept failing your comprehension tests at school. :)
It was your OP, and you could only stretch your brainy bits as far as one single Universe.

That's an assumption on your part. Several in fact. And you'd have lost that reading comprehension bet by several furlongs. Depend upon it.

Setting all that aside, I see no reason whatsoever to include other universes in this discussion. Would you like to offer some practical reasons as to why we ought to include them? Isn't this universe enough? Did I miss the bit in the Bible where God created other universes?

That's a bit like the mindsets of flat-Earthers in the last century.

Except that advocates of the round Earth were't arguing that there were multiple earths involved.

File Under: Analogies, Bogus.

...

Besides, if you're going to claim that there are other universe, don't you think it'd be fair to ask you to demonstrate that they exist? Beyond being theoretical? Beyond being matters of conjecture? Why not tell us all something meaningful about these other universes? Please.

Allow me to offer some conjecture about these Other Universes: No matter how different the conditions might be for life to occur in some other universe (and it seems best to grant that they might be totally different from how they are in this universe), I like to imagine the inhabitants of said universe standing around (on their neon green tripod legs) saying (out of one of their mouths) something akin to:

"But look at our methane atmosphere! If it were only .00000000001 different, life here on Planet Qxyffp could not exist ... therefore there must be a God!"

Oh Gawd ...... there's this idiot who props up the bar in the local and declares 'Nobody can sell me anything!' And then the barmaid says, 'Another, Charlie?' and he buys it! You remind me of him just a little. :)

Are you just here to regale us with irrelevant anecdotes or are you ever going to get around to speaking to the topic? Because at this point, never mind the universe. I'm not even convinced that intellect is driving your side of the conversation.

You're lovely...... on that basis, why don't you shift it to this solar system, or just the USA!

If you'd like to start your own thread called "Please demonstrate that intelligence was behind the creation of the United States" you are welcome to do so. It'd probably be a very lively discussion.

Rest assured, if I were to ever darken its doorway, I'd be sure to post something with a little more heft than the snide, off-topic drivel you've posted thus far.

Look.... I like you so I'll be patient with yo--

Don't bother if you can't offer something intelligent. You're wasting my time ... and perhaps that of anyone who's bothering to read the thread (in this or any universe).
 

NulliuSINverba

Active Member
Actually I was just pointing out it is easy to issue a challenge that you already know is impossible to answer. Where's the risk in that?

So you're conceding that it is impossible to demonstrate that the universe was created by an intellect? Are you also saying that it's only possible make the claim?

Thanks. What's that leave the scoreboard at? If we count no other response aside from yours, it looks like:

Absolutely Certain It Was Intellect - 0
Who Knows - 1

My actions, choices together with everything else in the universe work together to cause the next moment to exist.

See: Solipsism.

It almost sounds as if you suspect that The Next Moment wouldn't happen if you croaked before your next addition to this thread.

Certainly my actions and choices as well as your actions and choice play its part, however small in the creation of the next moment. You have reason to not believe this?

I see no reason whatsoever to believe that the flow of time is in any way dependent on anything you or I do. Of course, I'm operating under the assumption that there's more to reality than myself.

If you're making the assertion that our actions create "the next moment" then you're obliged to demonstrate that it is so.

I'd say that you're officially on the clock, but what you're talking about is probably best left to another thread.

What are you offering? I think that is the biggest problem. The inability to satisfactorily demonstrate an alternative. If could be shown they'd stop speculating.

People who've stated that the universe was created by intellect are speculating? Hmmm. I guess a speculator's claim is a speculator's claim ... even if it turns out to be iron pyrite?

Meanwhile, I will maintain that the act of simply asking people to substantiate their belief that the universe was created by intelligence places no burden whatsoever on me to produce an alternative.

Ok, but is rather obvious nobody knows.

You're preaching to the choir, my friend.

Even people who claim authority for the Bible, they still just make stuff up to fill in the gaps.

Thank you. Now try convincing them of that.

Like I said, pretty much a no risk challenge.

If their Biblically-Inspired Belief System® can't stand up to a little scrutiny ... what good is it?

Perhaps, try living with a bit more danger. Issue a challenge which could actually be beaten.

Look. No one was soliciting your approval for the general line of inquiry, and if you can't offer a response, don't. No one is forcing you to participate in this conversation (especially if you feel that the ID side is utterly untenable).

That's why I make statements or claims, to see if someone has a better explanation

Start your own thread. By all means.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
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.

Any judgment as to the veracity of the statement is immaterial. What is material is that the client is, in fact, a source.
Oh, but the veracity of the statement IS material. IF the engineering book had claimed that a little gremlin in the engine makes the wheels on a car turn, I can easily dismiss this source as false since the accuracy of the claim can be verified.
 

NulliuSINverba

Active Member
... as an agnostic I don't put any credence in the Bible at all.

So you're citing evidence that you don't believe in?

Any assertion, no matter what it is, amounts to a claim.

So "A = A" is only a claim?

Only to the extent that it is irrational to make a claim one didn't think is true (factual)---any attempt to deceive aside.

Does it follow that it is irrational to offer evidence that you don't think is true? Shall we rewind?

Skwim said:
"... as an agnostic I don't put any credence in the Bible at all.. "

So you've offered up what you feel is evidence, but have already conceded that you don't buy it. Certainly, you must be prepared to accept that no one else will buy it either, correct?

...

1.) Is it irrational to offer up the claim as evidence to support the claim?
2.) If only this thread were asking for evidence that anyone had ever made the claim that the universe was created by an intellect in writing. I think you'd have an airtight case.

...

Please note that in post #30 I put the term "fact" in quotation marks, indicating that it its truth is immaterial.

You believe that the truth value of a fact is immaterial? Please tell me I've misunderstood you.

You're ignoring the nature of your own request here.

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

Obviously no one is going to present some table-top exhibition,

I didn't
think it would be necessary to make any stipulations as to the form of the demonstration. But please ... carry on.

so the only reasonable interpretation of "demonstrate" is
noun
1. the act or circumstance of proving or being proved conclusively, as by reasoning or a show of evidence

So we've got:

1.) Reasoning.
2.) A show of evidence.

Are you saying that offering up evidence upon which you place no credence counts in either case?

Again. I must ask you: How rational is it to cite evidence upon which you place zero credence?

... which is what I've attempted to do; use reason to show that the Bible qualifies as a source for an answer to your challenge; The Bible states that . . . . . .

Again, the Bible is the claim that the universe was created by intelligence. Do you honestly feel it's sufficient to (re-)cite the claim as evidence for itself? Please explain to me how the following scenario isn't a fair distillation of what your entire argument boils down to:

Salesman: Madam, this little bottle of pills will cure whatever ails you.
Homeowner: Prove it.
Salesman: Well. See here on the side of the bottle where it says "This little bottle of pills will cure whatever ails you?"

Has the salesman actually utilized reason? Has he in fact cited any evidence?

Or is he merely re-stating the claim?

It's irrelevant. As I say, I don't buy the Bibles explanation; however, that doesn't make it any less an explanation--- the reason--a claim--a"fact" as presented by its authors.

You really ought to be selling stuff door-to-door. Seriously.

Nope it doesn't, but that doesn't mean it's not an explanation--- the reason--a claim--a"fact" as presented by its authors.

What I'd do is irrelev--

Your argument is suffocating in its own froth.

One of ways in which we differ is that I do not use the words "claim" and "fact" interchangeably.

To this point, all you've done is cite the Bible's claim that the universe was created by intelligence as evidence that the universe was created by intelligence. That proves zilch ... and it earns you this thread's inaugural
ozzk4qo

stamp.

Thanks for playing.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Oh, but the veracity of the statement IS material. IF the engineering book had claimed that a little gremlin in the engine makes the wheels on a car turn, I can easily dismiss this source as false since the accuracy of the claim can be verified.
Now you've taken the issue to another level. Recall that the OP only asked "Please demonstrate that the creation of our universe was driven by intellect." And I did just that. That the evidence is not poor does not invalidate that fact of my demonstration.

If someone is asked to submit evidence that little green men came to Earth from Mars and they hold up a Mars candy bar as evidence doesn't mean they failed to produce evidence, because they did: the candy bar. The evidence just happens to be asinine, which also applies to the Bible as evidence. As I told NulliuSINverba in post 42, "I don't buy the Bible's explanation; however, that doesn't make it any less an explanation--- the reason--a claim--a"fact" as presented by its authors. So, of course my demonstration was bad, but it was a demonstration none the less.
 

Viker

Häxan
Since we're technically operating under the premise in the title. This is easy. You called it a creation which would already imply a creative or intelligent/intellectual force behind its origin. Any thing you know of ever created itself?
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Now you've taken the issue to another level. Recall that the OP only asked "Please demonstrate that the creation of our universe was driven by intellect." And I did just that. That the evidence is not poor does not invalidate that fact of my demonstration.

If someone is asked to submit evidence that little green men came to Earth from Mars and they hold up a Mars candy bar as evidence doesn't mean they failed to produce evidence, because they did: the candy bar. The evidence just happens to be asinine, which also applies to the Bible as evidence. As I told NulliuSINverba in post 42, "I don't buy the Bible's explanation; however, that doesn't make it any less an explanation--- the reason--a claim--a"fact" as presented by its authors. So, of course my demonstration was bad, but it was a demonstration none the less.
Except that if the 'evidence is poor' then it really hasn't demonstrated anything, so I'd say that you failed to do just that.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
So you're citing evidence that you don't believe in?
Yup! Which really should come as a surprise. After all I told you in post 42, "as an agnostic I don't put any credence in the Bible at all."

Does it follow that it is irrational to offer evidence that you don't think is true? Shall we rewind?
Not if it's for diversion. I was merely taking the Christian position to see how far I could go in defending it. However, this was seriously sidetracked when I had to explain to you the meanings and relationships of "claim," "reason," and "fact." and how they relate to explanation in a demonstration. Sooo . . . I never did get to defend the Christian position. C'est la vie
shrug_n.gif
 

NulliuSINverba

Active Member
Recall that the OP only asked "Please demonstrate that the creation of our universe was driven by intellect." And I did just that.

No. You repeated the claim.

If someone is asked to submit evidence that little green men came to Earth from Mars and they hold up a Mars candy bar as evidence doesn't mean they failed to produce evidence, because they did: the candy bar.

Seriously? You'd offer a Mars bar as evidence that extraterrestrials have visited the Earth?

The evidence just happens to be asinine ...

And by extension, the argument behind it.

...

The Velvet Underground said:
"Some people work very hard,
But still they never get it right.
Well, I'm beginning to see the light."
 
Top