My Beliefs- GDR

So it is your belief that the likelihood of a fully formed highly complex and unimaginably intelligent entity just randomly existing is greater than simple components evolving over time to form moderately intelligent beings such as ourselves.Is that the crux of your position here?

Something, rather than nothing, exists. This is our starting point.Is the 'something' that just exists simple but capable of evolving such that greater complexity in the form of moderately intellgent beings (i.e. us) may eventually arise?Or is the 'something' that just exists a super-intelligent-bewilderingly powerful entity that chooses to bring simpler things (e.g. us) into existence? Can you see why your advocacy of (highly complex -> less complex) as more likely than (simple -> moderately complex) seems both to defy the observational evidence available and common sense?

Something (rather than nothing) exists. Do you agree that this is as good a starting point for analysis as we can hope to achieve? If so - Then it becomes a question of what is this 'something' that just exists (i.e. uncaused).Is it a highly complex entity with a number of fortuitous attributes such as being eternal, vastly intelligent and capable of universe creation? Or is it something less elaborate....? Actually I would suggest that is quite obviously wrong. Think about it. If causality is an internal emergent property of the physical laws of our universe then there is absolutely no reason to expect it to apply to the origins of the universe itself. Think about it..... It may be that we can construct a "Theory of Everything" which is so concise that its underlying formula would fit on a T-shirt. Or it may be that such a theory (concise or otherwise) is simply beyond us. We humans have been around but for the blink of an eye (not even that in cosmological terms). Yet even at this early stage we have developed a model that has allowed us to accurately predict and discover new constituents of matter. In this sense these things are "simple" in that we have good reason to consider them comprehensible, predictable and discoverable. But why is that either surprising or a reason to invoke mysticism?If you look at the history of human knowledge you see that it is one long chain of expanding horizons. To the earliest humans lands across the seas would have seemed like inaccessible other worlds full of strange beasts, plants and inhospitable alien landscapes. Moving forward down the centuries and we find humans happily sailing the seas and exploring the most remote parts of this Earthly world but still under the impression that Earth with "the heavens" above (and hell below) constituted the entirety of the cosmos. To us in the 21st century notions of the Solar system, rockets to the moon (and even neighbouring planets) as well as concepts such as galaxies and our Sun as just one star amongst a multitude of such objects are widely accepted and understood. To us it is the far reaches of space and the possibility of other dimensions, parallel universes and suchlike that provide us with the same sense of awe and mystery that our ancestors felt about things we now take for granted.I really don't understand why you consider the possibility of new horizons put forward as a result of scientific advancement as anything other than a continuation of the same pattern we have seen throughout the progression of human knowledge. I don't understand why you think it is justified to insert god into these new horizons in exactly the same way that our ancestors inserted god into the mysteries of their time. Why do you think are you any more likely to be correct with your godly insertions than they were?We know for an absolute fact that intelligence can evolve in this universe. That is the concrete basis for all such speculations. That other moderately intelligent beings may have developed from simple and humble beginnings as we have (whether in this universe or another - if such other universes do exist) can be speculated on the basis of our known existence. We know for an absolute fact that such develoment of intelligence is a possibility because (Hello!!) here we are!!Conversely the uncaused "just is" existence of a highly complex entity with a number of fortuitous attributes such as being eternal, vastly intelligent and capable of universe creation isn't even evidenced as a possibility (never mind an actuality) If I told you that your computer was directly created by an uncaused complex entity with a number of fortuitous attributes such as being eternal, vastly intelligent and capable of computer creation would you say this was "likely"....? Based on the observable evidence both the computer and this entire concept of an uncaused super-intelligence were most likely constructed by a developed but limited intelligence which itself arose from simple beginnings (AKA a human).

Hold on a minute. In one corner we have a universe containing electrons, quarks et al and the predictable interactions between them.In the other corner we have an eternal hyper-intelligence able to create universes full of interacting particles, a being who is able to design intelligent entities (i.e. humans), a being that can interact on a personal level with billions of people simultaneously, a being who created morality, a being that planned all of this to occur in such a way that his involvement in this process was entirely hidden except for the occasional immaculate conception or resurrection channeled through the super-human he sent to live amongst us 2,000 years ago.And you consider the latter to be less complex and less elaborate than the former and thus more likely to be the 'something' that just happens to exist rather than nothing.... Really? If so I find that astonishing. But you have placed God in the parallel universes and other dimensions that are the unknown and seemingly imperceptible and unknowable mysteries of today. The equivalent of "heaven" above the sky that seemed so out of reach to our ancestors. So - With all due respect - This is exactly what you are doing. The scientific position regarding this (very roughly) is - Yes we are teleological beings. We are teleological beings because we are a socially evolved species. In a social environment there is considerable selection advantage in being able to discern the intents and motivations of the other entities which make up the social environment (i.e. primarily other people). Furthermore there is very arguably selection advantage in overplaying such thinking. One is more likely to survive if one mistakenly assumes conscious intent/purpose when it isn't there than if one fails to recognise it when it is there. This is turn leads to things like hyperactive agency detection which in turn contributes to the human inclination to erroneously invoke the conscious intent of imperceptible super-beings when confronted with things that seem awe-inspiring and mysterious.No doubt you will consider this all part of the non-complex plan of the non-complex hyper-intelligent super-being you are invoking to explain the things you find too complex, awe-inspiring and mysterious to have occurred without purpose....... No I don't. What I reject is this notion that the 'something' which just exists is a highly complex entity with a number of fortuitous attributes such as being eternal, moral, vastly intelligent, able to interact with billions of other lesser intelligences simultaneously, capable of universe creation etc. etc. as remotely likely.I would suggest that something less elaborate is more likely....

It was more an expression of astonishment at what seems like blatantly back-to-front thinking. You consider the created (i.e. us) to be more complex than the creator (i.e. God).I find that position astonishing. One can always say it's "possible" that God exists in the realms that current knowledge places out of reach. One could say it was, at the time, "possible" that God existed across the seas that our ancient ancestors considered uncrossable. Or above the sky that our more recent ancestors considered to be God's unreachable heavenly dwelling place. Now we have you placing God in mysterious parallel universes and the other dimensions suggested by theoretical physics.Whatever arena human knowledge of the day considers plausible but out of reach is where theists seem to place their gods. You are following the same pattern. If we could reliably discern that which objectively exists by "knowing through our heart" we wouldn't have to bother with the methods of science at all. Unless you are able to discern the objective existence of something more concrete using this method why would anyone think you could possibly discern the objective existence of something as ethereal as god? So if it's all part of a an elaborate and purposeful masterplan designed by a hyper-intelligent eternal being it's less elaborate than particles interacting without purpose........Colour me astonished again!!

So do you consider a human (i.e. the created) to be more complex than God (i.e. the creator)? Or not? You've done away with an infinite causal chain at the expense of invoking a more specific and thus more improbable 'something'. Something, rather than nothing, exists. This is the starting point for analysis. The more attributes that are required of this 'something' and the more complex it is the more improbable it's existence becomes.For this 'something' to possess the additional attribute of being eternal (on top of being hyper-intelligent, moral, able to create universes, able to interract with billions of people simultaneously etc. etc. etc. etc.) only adds to the increasing improbability of such a something just existing rather than not existing. This isn't about cause and invoking eternality doesn't resolve the issue. Questions
Which, in your view, is more complex?A) A universe containing interracting partciles
B) GodWhich, in your view, is more likely to be the 'something' that just exists rather than nothing?A) A universe containing interracting particles
B) God Again - My astonishment in and of itself is not so much an argument but more an expression of bafflement at the positions theistic beliefs require those that hold them to adopt. Positions regarding complexity and probability and the like. Well if God has no objective existence and is a purely subjective phenomenon then he has no existence outside the minds of humans. Whilst I would agree wholeheartedly with this assessment I very much doubt this is what you meant.Do you think God objectively exists? Unless you are able to discern the objective existence of something more concrete using this "knowing through our heart" method why would anyone think you could possibly discern the objective existence of something as ethereal as god using this same method?

But I thought your considered human intelligence and morality to be too complex and elaborate to have developed without external intelligent input. I thought this formed a large part of your argument. If this is the case you must have some view on how complex or elaborate both the created and the creator are relative to each other mustn't you? Well either interacting particles are less complex than God or they are not. What do you think? Not if causality is an emergent property of our universe. Yet you are quite comfortable basing your entire argument on the inconceivable concept of eternality........ You call it "knowledge". On what basis do you suggest it is "knowledge" rather than belief? Then how do we differentiate between knowledge and belief? I think one of the failings of theists (even the more intelligent and reasonable ones such as yourself) is to conflate strongly held beliefs held by multiple people with objective knowledge.Do you think there is a difference between strongly held beliefs shared by multiple people and objective knowledge? What do you think the difference is?Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

I know it is not your intention to suggest that. But how can you talk about cause without relying on the notion of time? Causality is an internal property of our universe because time is an internal property of our universe. Furthermore given that you are basing your argument for eternity on time reversibility at the quantum level you really also need to consider what effect time reversibility has on causality with regard to this notion of "first cause" which you are so beguiled by. I can't put it better than cavediver has previously so I'll just quote him:

quote:

---

Cause and Effect is a concept born of our anthropocentric experience. We drop a cup, it falls to the floor and smahes into thousands of shards. It is easy to assign the dropping as cause and the smashing as effect; it is utterly counterintuitive to reverse those roles. And so we learn to assign causes and effects, and feel that behind those things we call effects should lie something to which we can assign the term cause.

​

But this is only true at the macroscopic level. At the quantum level, everything is time reversible. What appears as cause can just as easily appear as effect. An electron and a positron annihilate to create two photons. Two photons pair-create an electron and positron out of the vacuum. The exact same process viewed in two opposite directions through time.

​

In fact, as we build up these interactions into something much more complex, we realise that there is no cause and effect as such, but simple consistency. One can say that the effect requires the cause, but there is just as much validity to say that the cause required the effect. Causality is simply a constraint on what parts of the interaction have to be consistent with what other parts.

---

Message 59If time is reversible, causality is an internal property of our physical universe and notions of cause and effect are just the result of macroscopic anthopocentrci experience where does God fit in?The question simply boils down to what it is that exists. And whilst we have some rather emphatic evidence that the universe does exist we have neither evidence nor reason to conclude that some hyper-complex-intelligence just happens to exist as well. Which is why we should be suspicious of those who claim to subjectively know what objectively exists. Those that make such claims are almost certainly conflating strength of belief with knowledge.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But you do seem to be basing your argument on the idea that the bible is evidence of the stories that are in the bible. No?And whilst I can see the superficial reasonableness of saying that one can either believe these stories or not - with either acceptance or rejection being equally valid opinions - Let us not forget that we are talking about a dude born of a virgin and resurrected from the dead.Is the likelihood of this really equally evidenced either way? If we are talking about immaterial unicorns would that make any major difference to your acceptance or rejection?

On the contrary I have considered that and I have concluded that first century Jews are very probably prone to erroneously invoking supernatural explanations and stories in exactly the same way that numerous people's have demonstrably done throughout history. Citing the fact that human societies lacking scientific knowledge are prone to inventing stories of the suprenatural is a perfectly evidentially valid approach to the subject matter at hand isn't it? We are talking about a dude born of a virgin and raised from the dead here are we not....?The irony burns.

I don't understand the distinction you are making here.Animal sacrifices are accepted by God as atonement for sin. How is that different from the sacrifice of Jesus as atonement of sin?What's the difference?

So God accepted animal sacrifices as atonement for sin because those sacrificing animals had faith that heir sins would be atoned for by the coming of the Messiah - Is that right?But if they had faith that their sins would be atoned for by the prophesised Messiah then they wouldn't have any need to atone for their sins by sacrificing animals.Sacrificing animals to atone for sins therefore suggests a lack of faith in a sin atoning Messiah.......

Demonstrate to who? But if the faithful knew that the 'grand scale' sacrifice was coming what was the point of all the little sacrifices? (i.e. the animal ones) I'm not rewriting anything. I'm trying to understand how sacrificing animals to atone for sins can be seen as indicative of having faith that a 'large scale' sacifice to atone for all sins is inevitably on it's way. Frankly it seems contradictory.

No. Physicists are not postulating immaterial or supernatural explanations to physically detectable phenomena. See above. Not unless you are a substance dualist. From Wiki: "Findings in neuroscience that concern the mind-body problem do not support dualism, and the field operates under the assumptions of physicalism"Some "opinions" are more evidentially justified than others. Websters dictionary:

quote:

---

not composed of matter - Newton's laws explain the effects of nonmaterial forces on bodies

---

According to that dictionary definition Newtonian forces qualify as "non-material" If we are going to limit ourselves to online dictionary definitions then the sort of "non-material" that seems to apply to God is this:

quote:

---

nonmaterial - not consisting of matter; "immaterial apparitions"; "ghosts and other immaterial entities"

---

Universes, dimensions, forces, neuroscience wouldn't qualify here. God by most common conceptual meanings would.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I don't think GDR is seeking to justify that as such. His "justification" (if I have understood correctly) is to claim that those who believe the opposite are engaging in exactly the same but opposite fallacious reasoning. I know you believe that the resurrection didn't happen because you don't believe there is a god to have enabled the resurrection. Your rejection of the resurrection is a case of putting the cart before the horse. It's a logical fallacy. It's circular reasoning. See if you can follow your own reasoning: You believe god doesn't exist therefore the ressurection didn't happen. And you believe Christianity is wrong because Jesus wasn't ressurrected. How do you justify your own equal but opposite circular logical fallacy thinking based on the non-existence of God?Now I'm not defending GDR's position here (and he is welcome to tell me to butt out if he thinks I'm just confusing the issue) but as far as I can tell his position in this thread ultimately rests on the idea that everyone starts from a position of belief or disbelief and then draws their conclusions as to what qualifies as reasonable based on that starting premise.