Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

His very sentiment ''information is physical'' is a reification.

No it isn't. Try looking up "reification" to see where you're going wrong.

[Alan Burns]

Termites build cooling towers using simple components.  So, is it valid to infer an intelligence-first principle from that observation ?  To do so would be to forget that termites and their air condition expertise did not spring out of nowhere overnight, but rather, they and their behaviours evolved over millions of years, just as humans and their meccano building skills did.  If we model the universe in terms of opposing tendencies to order and disorder, intelligence is something that evolves gradually in the service of the tendency to order.  In the absence of any such context, intelligence makes no sense. Intelligence is a product of the universe not the cause of it.

You can't claim intelligence to be a natural development of the universe.  Science indicates that the universe started with a singularity known as the Big Bang, an initial burst of intense energy which on cooling formed gas clouds, some of which condensed into stars which clustered into galaxies.  The elements on our planet were formed as the by-product of an exploding star.  As the universe continues to cool, energy will be dissipated, light will no longer exist and temperatures everywhere will gradually fall to absolute zero, with all matter slowly evaporating into background radiation.  The intelligent life forms on this earth are just a tiny, insignificant blip in the time line of this universe.  You need to look at the bigger picture to realise that intelligence is not a natural attribute of this universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No it isn't. Try looking up "reification" to see where you're going wrong.

The very sentiment that mathematics is merely the description of the physical is reification.

[floo]

Alan you have no idea how many intelligent life forms there are in this vast universe of ours. There could be millions of planets hosting them for all you know. If that is so, they most likely have their own ideas about how the universe came into being.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You can't claim intelligence to be a natural development of the universe.

Of course you can when that’s where the evidence leads.

Science indicates that the universe started with a singularity known as the Big Bang, an initial burst of intense energy which on cooling formed gas clouds, some of which condensed into stars which clustered into galaxies.  The elements on our planet were formed as the by-product of an exploding star.  As the universe continues to cool, energy will be dissipated, light will no longer exist and temperatures everywhere will gradually fall to absolute zero, with all matter slowly evaporating into background radiation.

There are other hypotheses – many “big bangs”, a multiverse etc but ok. So?

The intelligent life forms on this earth are just a tiny, insignificant blip in the time line of this universe.

Yup.

You need to look at the bigger picture to realise that intelligence is not a natural attribute of this universe.

Er, what’s with the non sequitur here? You describe the physics more or less, and then jump to an entirely unwarranted assertion about intelligence.

Why?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The very sentiment that mathematics is merely the description of the physical is reification.

Actually it isn't, but as no-one said that anyway it's just (yet) another of your straw men to be ignored.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Alan you have no idea how many intelligent life forms there are in this vast universe of ours. There could be millions of planets hosting them for all you know. If that is so, they most likely have their own ideas about how the universe came into being.

Including the quantum hokey kokey no doubt.

[torridon]

You can't claim intelligence to be a natural development of the universe.  Science indicates that the universe started with a singularity known as the Big Bang, an initial burst of intense energy which on cooling formed gas clouds, some of which condensed into stars which clustered into galaxies.  The elements on our planet were formed as the by-product of an exploding star.  As the universe continues to cool, energy will be dissipated, light will no longer exist and temperatures everywhere will gradually fall to absolute zero, with all matter slowly evaporating into background radiation.  The intelligent life forms on this earth are just a tiny, insignificant blip in the time line of this universe.  You need to look at the bigger picture to realise that intelligence is not a natural attribute of this universe.

One humungous great non-sequitur. Of course intelligence is a natural phenomenon, we can see evidence for it everywhere, not just brainy scientists, we see it in other primates, in corvids, in cetaceans, in ant colonies (remember). Everywhere apart from in your posts perhaps 

[Alan Burns]

Alan you have no idea how many intelligent life forms there are in this vast universe of ours. There could be millions of planets hosting them for all you know. If that is so, they most likely have their own ideas about how the universe came into being.

Whatever other life forms exist in this inherently hostile universe, they would need to have been nurtured into existence by the will of the Creator.  This universe is nothing more than a dissipater of energy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As you've just fallen straight back into yet another fallacy (the non sequitur) perhaps you can be tempted finally to have a go at the question you keep avoiding, namely:   

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE TERM “LOGICAL FALLACY” MEANS AND, IF YOU DO, DOES YOUR RELIANCE ON THEM IMPLY THAT YOU THINK THAT A FALSE ARGUMENT SOMEHOW BECOMES A GOOD ONE WHEN YOU HAPPEN TO LIKE ITS OUTCOME?

And while we're about it, as you just ignored the correction you were given do you now understand why the fact of you is not analogous to winning the lottery over and over again?

[torridon]

Whatever other life forms exist in this inherently hostile universe, they would need to need to have been nurtured into existence by the will of the Creator.  This universe is nothing more than a dissipater of energy.

Makes no sense.

A creator wanting to create life would not set out by making a universe inhospitable to life in the first place, such that he then has to apply special measures to make it happen despite everything.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Whatever other life forms exist in this inherently hostile universe, they would need to need to have been nurtured into existence by the will of the Creator.

A personal statement of faith you no doubt believe, but for which you have no evidence whatever.

This universe is nothing more than a dissipater of energy.

Followed by a misunderstanding of the physics.

[floo]

Whatever other life forms exist in this inherently hostile universe, they would need to have been nurtured into existence by the will of the Creator.  This universe is nothing more than a dissipater of energy.

That is what you want to believe to be true, but there could be another explanation, which has nothing to do with any creator god.

[Gordon]

His very sentiment ''information is physical'' is a reification.

Wrong.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

As you've just fallen straight back into yet another fallacy (the non sequitur) ....

As usual your claim for non sequitur boils down to a difference of opinion, (in this case about the natural attributes of the universe), but you raise the status of your opinion to be something concrete (reification fallacy!) in order to claim the non sequitur.

[Gordon]

As usual your claim for non sequitur boils down to a difference of opinion, (in this case about the natural attributes of the universe), but you raise the status of your opinion to be something concrete (reification fallacy!) in order to claim the non sequitur.

Utter and desperate nonsense: you can have an opinion about the ' the natural attributes of the universe' if you want but that says nothing about what these attributes might be, so your charge of reification fails: no surprise there since you clearly don't understand fallacies.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As usual your claim for non sequitur boils down to a difference of opinion, (in this case about the natural attributes of the universe), but you raise the status of your opinion to be something concrete (reification fallacy!) in order to claim the non sequitur.

How is it even possible to get so much wrong in so few words?

First, there's no "as usual" about it.

Second, a non sequitur is not a difference of opinion. When the conclusion does not follow from the statement or argument that precedes it (which is exactly what you did) then it's a non seq regardless of anyone's opinion on the matter.

Third, it's not reification at all. The non seq is "claimed" because your post was constructed precisely to fit the formulation of a non seq. What logical path is there from statements about the nature of the universe and having to look "elsewhere" for an explanation for intelligence?

Oh, and here's your kryptonite again:

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE TERM “LOGICAL FALLACY” MEANS AND, IF YOU DO, DOES YOUR RELIANCE ON THEM IMPLY THAT YOU THINK THAT A FALSE ARGUMENT SOMEHOW BECOMES A GOOD ONE WHEN YOU HAPPEN TO LIKE ITS OUTCOME?

Won't you tell us even why you won't at least try to answer it?

[Alan Burns]

One humungous great non-sequitur. Of course intelligence is a natural phenomenon, we can see evidence for it everywhere, not just brainy scientists, we see it in other primates, in corvids, in cetaceans, in ant colonies (remember). Everywhere apart from in your posts perhaps 

All your observations pertain only to what is seen on this planet, not in the universe as a whole.

How can you dismiss the concept that what we see has been nurtured into existence by the will of an intelligent creator?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

All your observations pertain only to what is seen on this planet, not in the universe as a whole.

I suppose someone whose reasoning ability comes from the twelfth century should be forgiven for no knowing that telescopes had been invented.

How can you dismiss the concept that what we see has been nurtured into existence by the will of an intelligent creator?

Because the conjecture is incoherent, irrational and utterly lacking in any supporting evidence.

Apart from all that though...

[floo]

It is possible an intelligent designer did the deed, but if that is the case I bet the Biblical god ain't it, as it doesn't seem a credible entity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

PS: DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE TERM “LOGICAL FALLACY” MEANS AND, IF YOU DO, DOES YOUR RELIANCE ON THEM IMPLY THAT YOU THINK THAT A FALSE ARGUMENT SOMEHOW BECOMES A GOOD ONE WHEN YOU HAPPEN TO LIKE ITS OUTCOME?

[torridon]

All your observations pertain only to what is seen on this planet, not in the universe as a whole.

And how is that not consistent with following the evidence ?  There may be dandelions on planets circling distant stars, there may be conscious beings playing board games, we just don't know that.  That does not stop us from observing what happens here and trying to understand it.

How can you dismiss the concept that what we see has been nurtured into existence by the will of an intelligent creator?

Read the posts, Alan, this is an incoherent notion.  Intelligence grows, aggregates, emerges over time; this is what the evidence we have teaches us.  It is not a fundamental and so it is an irrational proposition to suggest intelligence as a first cause.  Intelligence needs a context and a first cause has no context by definition.

[Alan Burns]

I suppose someone whose reasoning ability comes from the twelfth century should be forgiven for not knowing that telescopes had been invented.

The point I was making was that intelligence is an observed phenomenon of this planet, not of the whole universe.  Torri was claiming that evidence for intelligence as a natural phenomenon was everywhere.

[Alan Burns]

Read the posts, Alan, this is an incoherent notion.  Intelligence grows, aggregates, emerges over time; this is what the evidence we have teaches us.  It is not a fundamental and so it is an irrational proposition to suggest intelligence as a first cause.  Intelligence needs a context and a first cause has no context by definition.

I believe we were created in the image of God, the supreme intelligent Creator.  Your conjecture is to assume that intelligence, together with conscious awareness and conscious choice, is just an accidental by-product which occurred during the dissipation of energy in this universe.

[floo]

I believe we were created in the image of God, the supreme intelligent Creator.  Your conjecture is to assume that intelligence, together with conscious awareness and conscious choice, is just an accidental by-product which occurred during the dissipation of energy in this universe.

As has been said so often before, just because you believe it to be true doesn't mean it is.