Total posts: 112
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
This was initially posted to @ATroubledMan, so I may not have addressed at fully as I would otherwise, I will do so now however.
I'm done with your nonsense. I don't care whether or not you agree with it but at least you could acknowledge it. Here is my premise one last time.....here is the explanations (a statement or account that makes something clear). to support that premise.
Proposition (inference)=
The universe is made up of intelligent processes that achieve a particular ends, it operates as an intelligent source, that source would be what we call God (Creator). God uses the processes we observe in the universe to bring things into existence.
Fair enough, it's a proposition, so not much to say in response to it.
"Rationale (reasoning)=
Processes do not occur all by themselves, it takes an intelligent source or operator to produce and direct results in a definitive manner. Nothing builds (evolves) itself into existence that has no way of planning, manufacturing or accomplishing that which would entail intelligence.
Let's break this down to the points that are suppositions.
'Processes do not occur all by themselves, it takes an intelligent source or operator to produce and direct results in a definitive manner.'
Can you support this claim with anything or is it just supposition?
'Nothing builds (evolves) itself into existence that has no way of planning, manufacturing or accomplishing that which would entail intelligence.'
I would say that to our knowledge nothing builds itself into existence. If you mean that nothing can make something without an intelligence involved then I would again say can support this claim or is it just supposition.
Common sense (explanation)=
It is irrational to believe and accept that inanimate (unintelligent) forces could ever produce anything let alone intelligent processes that manufacture intelligence and sentience. To build or achieve anything means to have a plan and then to put that plan into operation, common sense would tell us that proposition needs first a mind involved, or an intelligent source behind that achievement or destination.
This too shall need to be broken down further.
'It is irrational to believe and accept that inanimate (unintelligent) forces could ever produce anything let alone intelligent processes that manufacture intelligence and sentience.'
This is a claim, can you show any logical fallacy or argument that shows this to be irrational, or are you simply stating that it's your opinion that it's irrational? If the former, please present said argument or fallacy.
'To build or achieve anything means to have a plan and then to put that plan into operation, common sense would tell us that proposition needs first a mind involved, or an intelligent source behind that achievement or destination.'
Achieve here is a loaded term as it implies an intention, as does build, but can you explain why it's illogical for unintelligent processes operating without a plan, intention or goal couldn't have interacted in such a way that the universe would form as we observe it?
Correlation=
We associate processes with intelligence or a mind, processes are always associated with intelligence. Production is always associated with a producer, developer is required for something to be developed.... one requires the other. There is a mutual relationship between that which produces and that which is a production.
This is the most relevant part, so we'll take our time with it.
'We associate processes with intelligence or a mind, processes are always associated with intelligence.'
Claim, I don't (and don't know anyone else who does) associate the process of ageing with an intelligence (you have explained why ageing occurs, but not once why that suggests that it is associated to intelligence, I can pull the related posts if it would be helpful?), technically this alone is evidence that the above claim is false, but let us say a better claim and drop that we, can you show this is the case?
'Production is always associated with a producer, developer is required for something to be developed.... one requires the other.'
Production is merely the act of producing something, to produce something is 'to cause to have existence or to happen'. Why can't unintelligent natural processes be the producer for the production of things that aren't produced by human-initiated processes?
As for development, that would depend very much on how you're defining develop if you define develop as:
'to expand by a process of growth'
Then I'd ask how do you establish this? Can you show there is a developer involved in the growth of a plant or animal?
Evidence (which includes the above assessments as well)=
"that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."
"something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign"
"information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"
"something presented in support of the truth or accuracy of a claim"
=Observations of real life activities (independent of nature, since I'm arguing that those are the processes of a Creator), real life productions, real life manufacturing, real life creations (art), real life development, real life construction, real life building, real life assembly ect ect, we know from real world observations that all those things require there to be a source to begin, evolve and accomplish anything.
Every single result of a production (process) in our real world I can present the originator of, not a single thing that has been produced can be shown to have created itself.
This commits the fallacy known as no true scotsman, just because you're arguing that they're something doesn't mean they aren't themselves viable examples. Further your argument becomes invalid as it only leaves human initiated processes, a subset of processes that must by definition be initiated by an intelligence. I will put it to you like this, I will agree to discount natural processes if you can demonstrate that one natural process must be the product of intelligence with logically sound and verifiable arguments.
Can anyone show or produce evidence of anything in the real world producing itself without a producer, creator, developer, manufacturer, builder, designer ect ect?
This is a strawman as ATroubledMan never once made the claim that anything produces itself, however, can you demonstrate that an intelligence was involved in the formation of the earth? We can see processes in action in the formation of planets, we can build models of how it can happen, now can you show or produce evidence that it required intelligence to initiate those processes? Your entire argument rests on that.
Logic=
In our real life experience everything that brings about a result requires intelligence, so why when it comes to the productions of the universe is anyone willing to that fact?
The formation of planets, fires, the growth of plants, weather patterns. I see all these things in my daily life, they all bring about results, can you show an intelligence associated with any of them?
Conclusion=
Science doesn't claim processes occur all by themselves, it examines how things operate and reports an accurate depiction of that alone, it makes no claims or objections about a possible God.
No one to my knowledge makes claim processes occur all by themselves, some people claim there is no intelligence involved in some of those processes, some people (such as myself) don't accept either that position or the position that intelligence must have been involved.
Science is a method WE use, it has no mind or knowledge of its own, it just examines what we feed it and what we put into it. It reveals what ingredients are in a recipe but makes no reference to a maker because that's not a factor it can reach.
Can you show there is a maker in this case?
To make the assumption that the scientific method exempts God or a Creator from the equation is to abruptly inject ones own presumptions. Science is not atheistic, it is a neutral study meaning that it is not only compatible with Theism but it shows the processes of how God creates things.
I agree with this to a point. It would be presumptuous to say science in any way works to disprove a god would be true, though if science cannot answer questions related to god, then it is exempt, which isn't to say that god couldn't exist, but only that it would have to be exempt from science. However, the highlighted section is an unsubstantiated claim that I would say is equally presumptuous.
It is completely rational and logical to embrace a Theistic proposition of creation. Nothing ever comes from nothing since there was always something (intelligence/awareness) out of which all processes occur, this is a superior platform to any other hypothesis than to accept that somehow inanimate forces of nature developed intelligent processes.
Opinion and supposition, can you present any evidence to support your claim that there was always an intelligence/awareness? So far you've made a lot of claims, but not presented evidence for them. How can we know what is beyond this universe?
In a nutshell, all the things mentioned above have an intelligent cause and a rational reason why anything or any processes even begin and produce results. Evolution is also NOT an atheistic proposition even though it is presumed by atheists. Evolution too is a process that brings about a desired intelligent ends and results, it is by this very process how God plans and achieves that which It wants to create. It is by that very process why you even exist as a human, why we have the benefit of looking out into creation to observe the many beautiful species that exist as they do.
While I agree that evolution isn't an atheistic position, I would point out it's also not a theistic one. You follow this with a claim that Evolution brings about a desired result? To be clear here, I mean can you show that something initiated evolution wanting to get the results that evolution has got?
"Anyone willing to consider this as a legit premise feel free to engage and move forward. There's lots more to discuss, how God did all this and by what methods, why does God create anything...how does this relate to you personally, what is a soul, why do we need physical bodies, why are there many different religions, what is the purpose behind spirituality ect ect just let me know."
Still considering it, though I'll admit, I am seeing a lot of claims, not a lot to back up those claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
"We've been over this, it's not my position or argument that the definition of processes require intelligence."
The part before what you chose to copy (you really should take to copying my complete comments and addressing them as a whole, it might help you understand them better) points out that I'm addressing the issue in your
"The definition simply states what it means, not why it occurs. My argument has been based on correlation not the meaning of the word process."
And what is this correlation? Give details, please. I mean there are correlations between Natural processes and human-initiated processes, they're both subsets of processes and they both end with a change in their environment. Which of these correlations suggests that there is a creator involved in natural processes? If you mean another correlation, I don't believe I've caught it.
"However, the definitions I used in this thread show what I meant by a process and how I'm using the term. On the other hand, the definitions above do not negate my argument that there could be an intelligent Source since my position is that intelligence is using those processes to bring about results."
I never said it did, I mention it to make sure that we're clear that the term process doesn't presuppose intelligence.
"And again, inanimate forces don't have minds or intelligence to bring about particular results. How could they?"
Unintelligent processes would very reliably bring about a particular result, in fact logically, all things being equal (no alterations, additions or subtraction of other factors) they would logically always get the same particular result, because they would do the same thing every time until some factor changed.
But let us discuss in more depth your correlation claims and the argument you've presented. In our discussion you have only once directly addressed your claim of a correlation that suggests intelligence in design, so I'll grab that post and go over what my issues are with it and we can perhaps have a meaningful discussion where you, for one you perhaps consider what I present rather than simply dismissing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Are there not results that produce things that effect another thing? we've gone over some of the things that qualify as intention already.
This is immaterial unless you can show those results could only occur with an intelligence. You have said many things qualify as intention, yet you have never shown that this is anything more than your opinion. Point to one thing that results from natural processes that is demonstrably the product of a plan. I don't mean that you are assuming to be the product of a plan, or that you think makes more sense as a product of a plan, but that is demonstrably, verifiable as the product of a plan, rather than the result of unintelligent processes.
What else would you refer to it as
Notice again you don't answer the question. Can you show that the universe is the product of a plan or can't you? How do you verify your claim? You claim to know, then demonstrate how you can know.
But if they don't know how to act how does anything get accomplished? why does anything exist at all? how does anything make sense?
Why would they need to know how to act? They'd simply be in motion and that motion would lead to interaction which would lead to the universe as we see it. As for why does anything exist at all, clarify the question please? Do you mean how did it come to exist, or for what purpose does it exist? If the former then I don't know, for the latter can you show that the universe must have a purpose? Lastly, how does anything make sense? That's easy, a lot of damn hard work on the part of a lot of people, the universe makes sense because we've looked at the world around us and learned how it functions, how the forces interact with each other, I'd also argue that a lot of it still doesn't make sense, just look at quantum mechanics.
Ahhh, they simply act and do things and wah-lah! but they are dead and inanimate lol.
Not dead, dead means no longer alive, that which never lived cannot be dead. Nor does anyone seem to be claiming that they're inert or motionless. But enough trying to shift the burden of proof. Can you show any logically sound reason supported by evidence that unintelligent processes couldn't have resulted in the universe we observe? If you can't provide a logically sound answer, that's not a problem, but at least have decency to admit that so we can move on.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself that with a straight face. It's not that it must, it is that there is.
Again, you have cherry picked well, lets give the that statement context shall we. I asked:
If not then a lot of your questions above aren't valid, there is no need for the processes in the universe to know how to act, or to know anything, they simply act and in doing so this universe formed. Why must there be intentionality in any of that?
You cherry picked the last sentence. So, let me be clear on my question. Why must there be intentionality behind the natural processes that act upon the universe? Why does the existence of life and humans and intelligence show there must have been a mind behind it all aiming for that goal? If you can't actually answer that question with something better than to assume the alternative is absurd, then you have nothing but an argument from incredulity. If all you can do is ask me to explain how it can be otherwise then you have nothing but an argument from ignorance and an effort to shift the burden of proof. You are the one claiming something about the origins of the universe, you are the one who claims to have knowledge. Well, I'm asking you if you can make good on those claims, so far you've not been able to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
At this point should I presume you're being an ass?Premise-previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.base an argument, theory, or undertaking on.
No, just being accurate. You haven't presented something that's a statement or proposition that can be used to infer something else for a while. You've been too busy trying ad hominem arguments and lamenting the fact that I'm considering the premises that you made at the very start of our exchange. If they are the premises you mean then I'll accept them as long as you can show that they're logically sound and accurate. P2 is particularly tricky, since you still seem to be stuck at only being able to show that processes can be initiated by an intelligence, not that all processes were or must me. Nor have you in any way shown how we can logically conclude that they must be associated with an intelligence. You have pointed to things in the world and made arguments from incredulity about them, but nothing that shows this intelligence is anything more than an assumption of yours because you don't consider the possibility of an unintelligent origin viable. You want more than that then you'll need to provide evidence and logically sound argument for why this a creator must exist. That you don't do that isn't my fault, nor do I particularly want you to fail, I'd be quite happy to accept your position, if it were sound.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Lol all except that it just produces things that are conscious and alive. How did an inanimate universe produce intelligence from a lifeless unconscious state?
That's easy, the same way a universe created by an intelligence would. The processes don't need to change at all in either model, the same processes would get the same results, the only difference is if those processes began due to an intelligence with a plan or not. Can you show any evidence that they must have had a plan to function as they do?
you haven't seen any reason though life and consciousness is all around you, suddenly it's here and you just can't find a good reason. Okay then what can anyone say? you just don't see it even though it's there....
No, it's not suddenly there, but it formed, why does that demonstrate an intelligence? Why must intelligence be the product of a plan rather than the result of unintelligent natural processes?
If seemingly lifeless, unaware forces of nature begin to act as an intelligent operation and produces things like a producer and you just act as if nothing is going on why even bother to come here? why did you instigate a conversation with me if you're going to roll over and play dead?
The highlighted section is supposition, can you substantiate that natural processes ever acted as an intelligent operation rather than simply continuing through their unintelligent motions to an end that resulted in intelligence without any intelligence initiating or influencing affairs? As for your question, it's because I find the topics worthy of consideration. This is what consideration is, to question to test and to consider. That your arguments aren't sound is no fault of mine, if you would directly address the logical errors that I present rather than simply ignore them or deny them, then we might actually make progress, I'd be happy to begin at the beginning in good faith if you agree to a discussion where you begin at the beginning and establish why you believe it's absurd to consider the possibility that unintelligent processes could produce anything we observe in this universe, but you need to have the intellectual honesty to directly address the fallacies presented to you, something you don't seem to be willing to do.
if you're going to assume that it is all an unknown and that any facts or information regarding a Creator is simply confirmation bias then why interact at all? if you have no reason to believe or consider anything at all I find it ironic you would come to a religious forum.
It's not an assumption, it's based on the fact that no one I've spoken to on the matter of a creator has been able to provide any facts information that can logical show we can know a creator exists. I present a flaw in reasoning or question assumptions every time I address you, that you don't address those flaws and do nothing to suggest we can know what you're claiming to know is no fault of mine.
Transcend, transcendence is the word that applies here. This is where you would begin to ask questions to someone like me, this is how you would learn stuff and that things CAN be known. You could take such information and incorporate it into your own data base whether or not you accept it.
But first I would need to accept your premises:
P1: The universe is developed by processes
P2: All processes are associated with an intelligence/mind
Correct? If so then I can't do that until you show that all processes are associated with a mind. You point to correlation, yet this correlation hasn't stood up to scrutiny. The only correlation between Human initiated processes and natural processes that I can see is that they're both subsets of processes, this does nothing to support your claim though, the problem is in looking at subset A (human initiated processes) and then arguing that subset B (natural processes) must contain some trait we see in subset A (in this case being initiated by an intelligence) yet this isn't necessarily so. Please explain in detail in a logical form what correlation shows natural processes must be initiated by an intelligence.
Sure, if you're a person who discounts sources that correlate with Theism, and no surprise you would. It's not an unknown rather has been known and been shown for ages. Spirituality including all the insights and knowledge wrapped up therein have been around almost as long as humans began perceiving. You can claim it's an unknown or that it can't be known but in all honesty it's not the case.
No, I discount correlation that doesn't lead where it claims to. You have yet to present any correlation between natural processes and human initiated processes that suggest that because intelligence can initiate some processes it must initiate all processes, I've asked several times how you establish this and you haven't answered me.
Assuming God exists (just for the sake of this point) the information has been presented.
No. If we assume god exists, there still hasn't been any information presented that shows this to be fact. Everything you've presented has either been assumption or logically unsound as I've addressed every time you've presented it. Address the logical errors and show that you've facts to back up your assertions and then there would have been information presented that allows us to know god exists, otherwise we have no way of knowing god exists, even if it does.
It's only your own reluctance that makes it an unknown, is that intellectually honest? Just because you don't particularly trust spiritual claims and insights does that make your case legit if God exists?
It's not my reluctance, it's the lack of facts. Information is a body of facts, evidence is facts and information. Facts are that which can be known to be true. Nothing you present can be shown to be logically sound and not an assumption. My claim is legit because of that lack of facts (and as such information) that is why my position is legit and the only intellectually honest position I can take.
or does that just make you a skeptic? at what point would you be willing to say "ya know....maybe it's not a unknown, what reason do I really have to assume the origins of the universe are unknown? have I paid attention and considered all propositions? how could I claim it's unknown when I don't know myself? is it unknown to everybody?"
At the point that people can show they know with logically sound argument and facts to support their position and claims.
Actually had you educated yourself on what evidence entails and how it is defined when I posted it for you then you wouldn't have made this mistake. Perhaps go back and read it, and see if you're able to catch it this time. I'm honestly getting sick of those who would probably be the first to claim they go with evidence and not know what evidence is and how it is defined. After you read how evidence is defined go look up the word "testimony". Guess what word will be used to define what a testimony is? if you wanted to be intellectually honest you would be willing to include and incorporate all truths the way they are defined whether or not you find it legit.
Evidence must be based on facts. If you'd not cherry picked the middle of a sentence you might have noticed that what I actually said was:
Unfortunately considering how many times people have had strongly held convictions and beliefs that have proven to be wrong, even those that have been backed by personal experience and things they believed they'd seen, heard or interacted with, it's not really evidence of anything, especially when the experience you allude to isn't shared.
Now the parts you cut out are important. My point is that evidence is facts and information (itself a body of facts). For testimony to be evidence it must be reasonably likely that the testimony is built on fact. The fact that people are often wrong and giving testimony that isn't based on facts (intentionally or not), since it's not stuff that they know simply that they believe, means that testimony must be taken on a case by case basis to see if the testimony's claims are factual. Otherwise I could go to a murder trial and testify that I saw the suspect murder someone despite having not been anywhere near the scene.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Here's one thing i don't agree with people that dissent from my view... that i can't anthropomorphize or use what i know exists in "this reality." Why not? Bc these are things i know exist. They are just tools. Bc if they exist here, then they would exist in something else... in another form? A little more of or less of?
Yet therein lies the problem. You can use what you like in making your ideas, but there's no reason to think that there's any validity to them. You can't in any way establish that time, space or any other property of this universe exists elsewhere. You can't even establish the probability of such a proposition.
I don't know, but those are things i can think about. Comic book authors have really fine-tuned the implications of time... so, crap... there can be many implications, and why should i not be able to judge these implications in a probable way?
You can think about anything of course. Yet when you start to speak of 'probable' you need to be able to establish variables and likelihoods, something you can't do when you don't know what factors apply or how strongly.
What would a universe without time be like? Is this just a dodge from my initial paradox answer or is it a real possibility to confront my speculation?
A very good question. It's not a dodge, I never dodge a question or point, yet the fact is that I don't know what a universe without time would be like however that I can't imagine it, that I can't understand it, doesn't mean it's not possible or even that it's not probable. If you can suggest a way we can observe and verify any details about anything outside this universe then you'd have a means to start logically and accurate considering the probabilities of different models, but until then, we're stuck with being able to work in this universe for such things.
Not being rude at all, just want to go with this thought experiment. I think something without time isn't anything... but, even nothing would be nothing moving forward... as we know, there very well could be no such thing as absolute nothing bc there is def. something right now... therefore, i don't think there is any reality without time.
Yet what is there in this universe that would necessarily, or even likely apply elsewhere, nothing we observe in this universe can logically be used to give us accurate information beyond this universe. Until we can observe and verify the traits beyond this universe speculation about it seems to be a fun thought exercise, but not much of a way to determine anything beyond speculation.
A "mind" navigating this infinite time just makes more sense then nothing being involved with the something... bc then we run into the paradox. Not saying my paradox answer is iron clad or anything, but these are many little evidences that lean me towards the possibility... so i'm listing them.
What makes sense to us may have nothing at all to do with what can be or is indeed what is. Our inability to understand something doesn't in any way affect the likelihood of its existence.
I understand how you are looking at it, but i'm not trying to draw a conclusion... i just want to know which is more likely. See, i think the platform with mind idea is more likely, therefore, i've now started to define what that means for me.
I'm still not seeing any way you determine likelihood. If you simply mean what you feel is most likely or what would be more likely in a set of conditions you've no way of being sure even apply.
I don't really care about the intricacies of the platform, more so who i am to it. I just need to know if it's probable, and i think it is.That's what you are talking to me more about, is it probable. From observation and thinking, i think we can give it a tiny leap towards probable although we don't have a proven platform (other than this reality - which is important here) to compare it with.
Yet we have no way of knowing that it's comparable to our universe at all in any way shape or form, we don't know that anything that applies here would apply elsewhere, we have no way of knowing that any conclusion we draw is more probable than any other due to lack of information.
I've explained my experiences in detail here and on other sites many times. I'm at a point where i don't really care to detail them anymore bc they are deep and i would have to write a lot. Let's just take one... asking something that is not there to move something, and it happens without a doubt. Whether it was a trick or something weird... the thing moved on demand, and while tested and provoked to do it multiple times.
When you say tested what do you mean? What was the criteria of this testing?
And btw, all of my experiences were sober... and if not, nothing in my system that would cause a hallucination, but i don't know. The mind is weird in how it works. The moving experience was with another however, so i can say it happened unless it was a duel hallucination... which is just a cop out at this point. Anyways, something moving something doesn't mean god, it just means something happened. The details of the experience are what's interesting to me.
If it's repeatable then subject it to further testing, confirm what is happening and study further. If there's something there then you'll be able to verify and expand on what you know.
But to this experience point, i agree with you... many many people are frauds. They want attention, have some kind of mental instability, want greed/money... sex, etc. Humans lie a lot. But i'm not lying, and quite frankly, i wish i was.
It's not about lying, or even mental instability (At leat not always) it's that we as a species are very well equipped for experiencing and understanding some things, within this range common sense is useful, good and generally reliable, when we get beyond this range however evidence suggests we're not so good, both our senses and our reasoning tend to become less reliable when working on the macro and the micro for example.
So, throughout the years, i probably ask more people about experiences bc i don't want to think i'm the only one... that would lead me to some kind of Solipsism belief which implications are terrifying imo. So, i've asked and heard many weird things. My point is... are they all lying? Are they all mistaken? Maybe, but i think the sheer number of experiences would count as evidence bc only "1" needs to have actually happened. I think the odds of one being true as it stands, even if i ignore my multiple experiences, points towards "spirituality."
Well that would depend on the experiences in question and what you're trying to establish with their testimony. Generally I'll accept anything as evidence if it's facts or information that support a claim, so this means two criteria need to be met, we need to be able to establish that it's a fact (or contains facts information being a body of facts about someone or something) and it needs to support the claim, many people get fuzzy on both those points, often assuming that we should just accept testimony as fact until it's shown to be untrue and often conflating points (I knew someone who believed that if ghosts could be shown to exist that would prove that a god exists... Never got a clear explanation as to why).
I personally strongly suspect it bc i have evidence... actually, through my eyes... it's hard evidence. It's proof at an individual level. I've done a lot of mental gymnastics to even ignore it on my own level and say it's weak evidence... but even at that point, things happened. But i understand why others can have a different position... i don't think you should strongly suspect it or suspect it at all. Remember, all i care about is "do i have an iron clad speculation." That's all i care about. I know i'm not at the iron clad level, but i like to think i'm on a reasonable level. The thing about my platform is ... i shouldn't be able to convince others. If i could convince Richard Dawkins of a god, he wouldn't be who he is anymore. All i care about is having a conversation with him where he says, "that's reasonable, but you're wrong." That's a W in my eyes.
Honestly, I can't speak to any of this without further information on your own experiences, which isn't me prying, simply me saying I can't really offer any meaningful insight into something in which I have little to no information (kind of the point of a large part of the rest of my last two posts I think).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Well, wouldn't you need to figure out more traits that are 'more' accurate to what it truly is in order to be able to establish ways of finding it out?
That depends, if you need information for the current claim then that's necessary. I don't believe you should try and solve the entire thing in one go though. The first question is does the universe require an intelligent origin to exist as it does. So far I've been shown nothing that suggests it does. In case you're unaware, the discussion my discussion with EtrnlVw began with the presentation of two premises by EtrnlVw 1. The universe is developed by processes and 2. All processes are associated with a mind/consciousness. Using this as an example, there's no need to know what this consciousness is only that all processes can be shown to be associated with one.
For instance, maybe it doesn't create but more so manifest things. Like a chess game on a god level scale. It knows if it manifests x humans in x time it will lead to y humans today. Therefore, it's not creation but manifesting intelligence into this reality to steer it. That would be tested way differently than lets say a simulation type god that created everything on a disk.
What do you mean my manifest?
Another thing about "necessary" ... i don't know how you define that. I guess it's not "necessary" to have a creator... could things just be happening? I guess it could, but it also could be the other way around.
It's context-dependent based on the discussion. If you're talking to someone about a specific god then, of course, it's necessary to address traits of that god, if you're discussing the presence of an intelligence that created the universe then specific traits may not be necessary.
It's just if it is something, the implications of understanding what that something is may be important. For instance if Christians are right, it's important to repent. Therefore, with what we have... i think yes it's necessary to try to figure the abstracts out.
I believe that first, you should determine if there is something there, no point in deciding what you want on your pizza if the restaurant only sells steaks.
I didn't know what pantheism was when i thought of this platform, but i think something on those lines is kinda what im getting at, but i think it's more complicated. I think the entire platform is a "mind" ... but that's not even the right word.
What exactly do you mean when you say platform?
I think it's just a platform with many minds. Just like this reality. Just imagine Stan Lee being the lead mind, however, not the one mind but one of the minds in his own mind living multiple realities. Oh man, that sounded like a headache lol. Maybe, a simulation within a simulation within a simulation... the start being the absolute simulation that is every other simulation at once. Idk, many ways to look at the platform. As to evidence of suspecting it... i guess we can get to that.
I've discussed similar concepts before, I'll admit I'm interested in seeing where this goes though.
So i would call this level one type evidence... we can do this, so why can't it be happening or have happened in other ways not known to us?
An interesting perspective, but frankly why assume that it has been done to us? What possible benefit do we gain from that assumption in terms of determining truth?
Logically, if our minds exist, in an infinite platform, then each implication of our mind... intelligence, imagination, creation, etc... logically / probabilistic, has to exist. Let's say there once was a race of beings that created machines that they merged with, created a simulation, and are now living in infinite simulations in a cloud. That cloud is a god platform. Just simply being able to imagine this, and also seeing that there shouldn't be a reason why we can't do this one day, isn't it probable it has already happened? This is a simulation type argument, but it seems reasonable to suspect.
Before you begin moving into speaking of what's probable, can you show the variables involved? Without knowing the variables I fail to see how we can establish probability.
I agree with you and have looked at it kinda the same... but it's the contents of other beliefs that need to be proven to me before i start thinking about the head guy... so i'm kinda coming at it in the reverse. Which is cool. You look at this similar but from a different angle which i can def. respect.
Generally, I tend to believe in starting with the base claim and working out. In theism that would usually be the claim of a creator god.
I will never be the one to say anything abstract i say is more than speculation... my personal hope is to come up with a platform that is as iron clad as i can get it as speculation. That's always been my goal anyways. I feel like for some reason my mind is hardwired to understand this abstract subject without knowing others... everything i say i've thought of on my own without much guidance. It's just a natural talent i have i guess... spiritual intelligence some others say, so i'll pride myself on certain things but never that i'm right bc i understand how i can be completely wrong if it turns out to be different or nothing.
Yet if you've got only speculation then why hold it as a belief (strong suspicion as you put it) rather than simply accepting it as a possibility and considering other lines of thought, other possibilities. Have you considered that you consider this argument the most probable because you haven't considered other ideas with enough of an open-mind or depth?
Well, we do define what we see... but i understand what you're saying. All i'm saying is... if we are existence, existence as defined it exists.
I think that depends on what you mean by define. I certainly see nothing to suggest that we set the parameters of that which we observe and if you mean that we give meaning to what we observe then sure, I don't see any reason to disagree with that.
We exist, but why would you think we're existence? what's your reasoning there?
So we can draw implications from it. An interesting implication to me is an infinite regress paradox and how a 'mind' added to the infinity would make the paradox moot. Would it still exist without us? Sure, but that is an interesting question within itself... does anything exist if nothing can define its existence?
The time paradox is only an issue if two criteria are met, firstly time must be linear (it appears that way to us, but that's hardly evidence of anything, there was a time the earth appeared stationary and flat to us), meaning time is moving forward (I've heard people make an argument that time may not be what moves, but we are moving through time, not an area I claim to be particularly versed in though). Secondly, we'd also need to be able to establish that time is a factor in whatever is outside this universe.
I don't see how that is any different than having nothing. Which is kinda the same thing i do with infinity and finite... infinity just makes more sense, a mind added to this infinity makes more sense... but that doesn't mean finite isn't the answer.
My point is that once we begin to try and conceive beyond this universe we're blind, we're left with no means of observing or verifying anything about such a state and so we cannot establish variables, which means we can't speak of likelihood or probabilities with any degree of confidence.
If you mean how can i prove it... i can't right? I don't know in what form it may exist outside of this... all i know is that it exists as we see it. That's enough. I've just added it to the equation now. We can use our imaginations from there to figure out platforms with or without it.
Yet none of these imaginings holds any real weight, we're considering things we've no reference for, we're trying to understand a game without knowing what the pieces, board or rules are.
Without out it... well, what would exist right? We can imagine nothing as something without time, but can we? If it use to be nothing, then something... then even nothing spent time being nothing. I'm just using what i know of time to think of this... which we can do.
It's possible that truly imagining either timelessness or nothing is beyond us, certainly, we have no frame of reference as to how such things would look, this is why trying to use our imaginings to come to claims of probability seems an unreliable way to establish much about anything that relates to whatever may be other than this universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Once we agree that at the very least, the post above is a logical premise we can make the next step in this conversation.
I don't believe there was a premise presented in your previous post to me, there was an argument of sorts, but as I said above, it's all built around intentionality, can you show that the universe is the product of a plan? If not then a lot of your questions above aren't valid, there is no need for the processes in the universe to know how to act, or to know anything, they simply act and in doing so this universe formed. Why must there be intentionality in any of that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The question itself is silly, that's why I keep calling it absurd yet you don't seem to get it. It requires thought to initiate a process, a process itself is the beginning of an idea or a desired outcome which brings about a result. It requires a mind and intelligence to formulate a process, to understand what needs to be done and how, what materials need to be used to manifest that idea.
Then you assert that for something to be a process it must have been initiated by an intelligence? Can you provide proof that there is a single natural (not initiated by humans) process going by your definition? If not then your premise 1 'the universe is formed by processes' isn't sound as we can't identify a single natural process'. So your premise doesn't make sense.
If however you agree that natural processes are processes, then your second premise 'all processes are associated with a mind/intelligence' requires you to be able to directly show that processes must be initiated by an intelligence.
Your problem is that what you've got is basically a equivocation fallacy. You use the term processes in a single way when it should be used in different ways depending on context. For example when speaking about Natural processes you can define process as:
2a(1) : a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result the process of growth
(2) : a continuing natural or biological activity or function such life processes as breathing.
Nowhere in this definition would there be the need to insert an intelligence.
Alternatively, you may be arguing more along the lines of what's possible, but if that's the case, I ask how do you establish it's not possible for this universe to have formed without any intentionality at all? Why is it absurd to consider that? Give reasons please.
Inanimate forces have no ability to think or understand something, they have no mind or awareness do you not see that? Like I said to Outplayz, that's like believing a painting painted itself or a building built itself into existence with inanimate materials and you're asking why I don't believe that lol. It's common sense, in other words me having to explain that to you makes me feel like I'm lowering my intelligence.
No it really isn't. There are two flaws in this comparsion the first is past experience. We have vast amounts of experience with paintings and buildings and how they come to be. Our experience tells us that people build buildings and paint paintings, yet in no way do we have any experience of anything creating universes, planets solar systems or anything else in nature for that matter. The second issue is that it's not like saying anything created itself. It's saying that forces interacted in such a way that these things formed. There is a big and important difference in that. Your argument seems to be a mere argument from incredulity 'I don't see how this can be so it cannot be'
That's why I keep turning the question back to you, how can a process begin without a mind, how does it know what to do?
Again you seem caught in your cage of assumed intentionality. You're still assuming an end goal to what the forces cause. If you don't assume that there is a plan then the forces don't need to know 'what to do' they simply interact and this is the result, no plan, no intentionality just forces interacting.
how does anything develop or manufacture something without intelligence?
I believe that you've already discussed how stars form? If so that works as an explanation. This works without an intelligence if you don't assume an intended outcome.
why do intelligent processes occur in our universe? you not being able to answer that should signify to you that it's not possible, processes cannot spontaneously begin to produce things all by themselves.
Not at all. It suggests to me there are things I don't know. I don't fill gaps in my knowledge with assumptions and call it done, instead I say 'I don't know how that works, let's question some more, see what we can learn' There are many things in this universe that we as a species don't know. I would also ask what you mean by 'intelligent processes' if you mean processes that are intelligent then I would ask what processes they are and how you can show they're intelligent, if you mean processes that are initiated by intelligence. I would say they exist because intelligence exists within the universe. Is there any reason that intelligence forming in the universe is in any way an indication of intentionality? Or is this simply something you can't believe could happen otherwise (argument from incredulity).
Again, thought and intelligence are required to know how a process should unfold, a mind is required to understand how to make that work and what is needed, what materials are required for it to be developed and what the desired outcome should be.
And again you insist on intentionality. Why must there be a way the processes 'should' unfold, rather than simply the way they 'do' unfold. If you are looking at the end result then I ask why does it require a plan for the universe to be as it is? If you mean that they're consistent, then I would ask why's that odd? If they were unintelligent wouldn't you expect them to react consistently?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
We really have to define what that means. Bc i don't believe it's most logical there is a sky being creating everything. This "creator" thing i believe is something way deeper.
I mean any intelligence force that created the universe. I don't see much point in discussing traits beyond the necessary until we can establish if there's reason to believe there is such an intelligence (or group of intelligences).
I'm more inclined to believe "consciousness" is everything. What the implications of that are is pretty wild, and many times outside of what i can know. Maybe it doesn't even know how it came to be bc it always existed and there was never absolute nothing. I don't know. Maybe things just are.
Pantheism then? I guess I'm half way there, I believe the universe exists. I haven't seen any reason to believe it's conscious or alive however.
But specifically with creating... if creating can be as simple as imagination becoming "a" reality... i don't see how that is impossible, and actually more likely since a consciousness that can create and imagine in an infinite platform has pretty wild implications. Imagine us being immortal, fully merged with technology, and able to create any simulation we imagine. What does "creator" mean at that point?
Someone or something that causes something to come into existence. I see no reason the term would change just because the complexity or scale of the creation had expanded.
A very little correlation to "a" creator... as proposed by many religions.
I rarely discuss specific religions, I tend to be of the mind that the question of the presence of a creator should be addressed before moving onto any traits not necessary for the discussion in question.
It would be a collective, it would be individual, it would be anything we can imagine... times that to infinity, creation simply has a crazy definition. Although "creating" is happening... not in a single creator setting. If you are arguing about that, i would take your side. I would not take the side of any one single creator / power definition. However, i always mention "a" platform. This platform can be called god / creator.. but the platform is simply the hardware / software that allows for what is... so, it's really not a one thing either. With all that, i think it's more logical that there is this platform so i'll try to keep on track with that... BUT
An interesting speculation, but nothing more than that from what I have seen.
Why do we have to get so complicated? Sure, our intelligence is what defines time. We define time off what we see in the mass of the universe existing.
I don't know as I'd agree that our intelligence defines time at all. I believe time is a property of this universe, but I see no reason to think that would change if the universe lacked any intelligent beings. It would simply be a property represented by the interactions of forces in the universe.
Time is just going forward... it's simply that. Put whatever definition we want to it.. things are moving forward. If we lived in a magical universe where there were super-humans that can control time... it would have a different meaning. But whether you can mess with time, turn it backwards, or whatever... all those actions are just moving forward.
Yet how do we determine that time exists beyond this universe? How do you propose to establish that time isn't simply a property of our universe and that beyond that (for want of a better term), there is no form of time as we comprehend it? What makes time more than a property of our universe like gravity or the strong nuclear force?
My point with infinite regress is, without a mind... nothing should ever exist for it should never get to it in an infinite platform. So then we can just say our reality is the final point.. a finite universe, then... how long does that finite space exist?
Again, this is all using standards built on ideas and traits within our universe, space and time are properties of our universe, but can we in any way establish it applies to anything that may be other than this universe?
Yet, an infinite platform with a mind to traverse it... makes sense. For then it can be both infinite and finite for there is nothing outside of its imagination. This is one of a few things i would call evidence to lean towards "consciousness" being king in truth of "absolute reality"... When i say time... i simply mean moving forward. Nothingness, absolute, could have just been that until it became something... nothing can move forward as being nothing even if it doesn't have time as we would define it. Maybe there was once nothing, but now there is something. And i think adding a supreme consciousness to this space makes more sense than there not being one.
Yet this still assumes time and 'moving forward', which in turn requires time. The trouble with trying to make a sound argument on any of this is that we've nothing to go on as to what variables are at play, what traits from our universe would apply outside our universe (again not a great term, but there doesn't seem to be a good one in this context), or what would be possible or even probable or inevitable in such a place/circumstance. We don't even have an example of nothing from which to build any idea of what can or cannot be applied to nothing. With such a large lack of information how can we hope to reliably draw any conclusions?
I said this earlier, this is where we both sound similar. I agree with you. I don't pretend i know what the platform is, or do i pretend i know any of the pieces of how, when, where, etc. It's beyond me. The only thing i can be certain of is my experience. That is where things get interesting bc if my experience is one where little truths are revealed... then, i have some expertise of saying x+y = z. X being me, Y being the experience, z being reality. But, this equation is only good for me. Adding other experiences to it would change it. I see reality the way i do bc it works with my experience... are there truths in it? Sure, and there is also fallibility. Which is why i can't make any "proof" like claims, only that this is where is stand to help the picture form from the collective. Etrnl is a lot further along then most theists, but i don't think he has all the exact pieces either. Therefore, your conclusion of just not knowing... i'm with you there. But, like i argue with many people that think there is no intelligence to this... i just simply disagree there. It seems imagination, a piece of consciousness as we know it, when added to infinity... is something pretty wild and more logical when added to the mix.
Not knowing what experiences you're talking about I can't exactly give much opinion. Though again I have to say that if you believe that you+experience=Reality, then we've come back to subjective reality, which seems to be a pointless topic, since we'd have no logical common ground, there would be no fixed truth upon which to establish shared understanding or existence. Again, what's wild is immaterial, fun to think about, not sound basis for building beliefs. As for logic, I've yet to see an argument that makes it more logical that an intelligence be involved in the formation of the universe than not.
I've caught myself on this many times now. Depends on how you define believe. I define believe a little different than the actual definition. To me it means i strongly suspect more than not... this is happening.
Yeah, I don't have reason to strongly suspect anything about the origins of the universe, everything I've seen suggests it's still a complete unknown, not much in accepting either position as more likely than the other when it's a complete unknown as far as I'm concerned, I suspect (and discussions I've had would suggest) that would only lead to confirmation biases.
So, i strongly suspect some kind of simulation theory mixed with some alcohol and weed, times infinity, is whats going on. What is that? Idk, all i know is i'm "one" of billions of characters that have existed in it. So, the only thing i should be focusing on is who my character is to this game. Everything else be damned. Bc in the end, the only thing that will have to deal with whatever it is... is me. Any other answer i simply wouldn't exist anymore. But if i do continue to exist, it's my character that i have to worry about. And personally, i've had some experience to reinforce that i am the center of this, and that there are things beyond what i've been told to be possible. So that's how i see reality now. I will never be an atheist by the strictest definition, but that's just my character and it makes sense bc i can't imagine being anything different.
Was the weed and alcohol involved in these experiences? because if so logic would suggest to me it may be worth considering hallucinations were involved.
You are just being you. I am not trying to change that, just add maybe something you haven't heard. In a way, making you better at being you. There is no evidence i can present to you, but i don't know why you would think there would be in this realm. If i saw an incorporeal being talk to me and tell me exact things to do that get me to certain places in my experience, how could i ever prove that to you? All i know is that it has proved itself to me for some weird reason.
If there is no evidence to support the idea, then why suspect it strongly? If there is no evidence you can possibly present to others to support what you believe has been proven to you, then how can you hope to convince or influence others?
But overall, sure there should be ways of zoning into this personal experiences one day to provide collective proof that they happen. I just don't think we're there yet or should we ever be? I don't know the answer to that. I just chimed in bc you seem to have a good head on your shoulders.
Perhaps, in time it's possible we'll have the answers. For now however it seems we've got no reason to conclude anything other than it's an unknown.
In regards to evidence, i can't give you this evidence if it was anecdotal... however, like i tell many people that ask for this evidence... isn't it evidence enough that there are people like me that say there is this evidence?
Unfortunately considering how many times people have had strongly held convictions and beliefs that have proven to be wrong, even those that have been backed by personal experience and things they believed they'd seen, heard or interacted with, it's not really evidence of anything, especially when the experience you allude to isn't shared.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm not concerned as to what makes you happy per say but what makes you content and what is intellectually honest. Are you really content with not knowing when there is an answer to the equation? .....I've been trying to get you to consider a logical premise, one that is superior to yours, one that only has one possible scenario. In this case you don't have to walk around not knowing when the answer is black and white.
Firstly, my contentment also isn't the issue here, the only issue is what is true, what can we support with logic and evidence (you have yet to present anything that's an unbiased indicator of your claim, everything is dependent on considering the possibility of this universe being as it is without an intelligence absurd, you'd have to show that basis is sound before the universe is evidence of your claim). Since your argument doesn't provide those in any meaningful way, it doesn't warrant belief, even if it would bring contentment.
Secondly, I would say it's not obviously black and white, since your argument has repeatedly boiled down to 'it's common sense'/'it's absurd' the first of which is hardly reliable as common sense has been shown many times to be wrong and the second of which is merely your opinion unless you can give evidence and logical argument to show why a universe is definitely absurd?
Created:
Posted in:
When there is an equation that has no other possible answer as there is only one useful and accurate explanation it has been shown already. 2+2 can only ever equal four, it has no other possible answer it's that black and white. It's as black and white as processes are associated with a mind...You could rattle off a dozen alternatives as to how intelligent processes could occur without a mind involved and I would consider each of them as long as they weren't illogical and absurd. As a matter of fact take that as a challenge, give me one or two other possible answers as to how inanimate forces could begin to produce results or why processes occur besides you don't know, or that they just do and I will gladly accept that my analogy is not accurate or that my answer may not be 4.
No, see this is an effort to shift the burden of proof. You are claiming to have the answer. That answer is true or not regardless of if there is an alternative answer or not. You have done nothing to show that your answer is correct, you've provided no evidence (you have yet to show anything that indicates an intelligence is necessary for the initiation of processes, only that intelligence can initiate some processes), your arguments have had many logical fallacies, including this one, which is an argument from ignorance and an effort to shift your burden of proof.
Otherwise the rest of your own analogy falls apart, because I'm not claiming we can't see what's in the box or know what it is. I'm giving you the only possible answer. You could prove me wrong of course.
Can you show that the answer you're presenting is correct though? You haven't in any way done that. Question for you, why can't processes begin without an intelligence? What is absurd about it? Give details, explain your reasoning and present the logic that you use to make that argument. Don't assume that because you take that position it's true regardless of the lack of evidence or logic. That is frankly arrogant. I am happy to follow this each step back until we reach a point where we have an answer or can go no further and must conclude there is no way for us to answer, but I will not accept 'it's absurd' or 'it's common sense' as neither of these are reliable ways to determine if the claim is correct or not.
Created:
Posted in:
By what it produces.
And why does what it produces suggest intelligence was necessary for its initiation? What is the reason for this conclusion?
By what it produces, all you have to do is look at the end results. We've been over most of these, the curious nature and dependence of stars, the arrangement of solar systems and the earths position, the eco-system, food, water, light and heat then the development of embodiments that utilize those sources.
And what reason do you have for concluding that they suggest the forces required an intelligence in their origin to achieve those results? Why does any of that indicate an intelligence behind it all?
Desirous in that you enjoy the beauty of earth and our solar system, you can live out your own desires and passions here. That you depend upon the very necessity of those factors to survive.
Can you show that there was a desired outcome behind any of this? Why does the fact that the outcome is good for me and the rest of life suggest in any way that it was planned to be so? Why is it an indicator of anything in regards to the existence of a creator?
Yes, I don't believe that an inanimate force could produce or create intelligence or produce anything. Can I show it to be verifiable? it's back to 2+2 could only ever have one possible answer. And this goes back to common sense as well.
And can you show this only has one possible answer and that it's your answer? If not then you're left with an assertion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Then stop claiming that none has been presented.
Why? Nothing you have shown fits the requirement of showing your proposition is true or valid. You still have a long list of fallacies to address before that's the case.
More accurately it's the available body of facts and information that indicate whether a proposition is true or valid.
And you haven't presented anything that shows your premise to be true or valid.
And it has been presented.
I have addressed a long list of issues with the logical nature of your argument, until you address them, then your premise isn't logically sound.
I haven't been made aware of legit flaws. My premise is sound, it is logical and supported by evidence.
Unfortunately saying that doesn't make it so. At best you have evidence that intelligences can initiate processes, your premise is that all processes must be initiated by a mind or intelligence, nothing you have presented supports that logically. If you disagree then present the logical argumentation to show that because some processes can be initiated by intelligence all processes must be. You can't make that crucial link and without that your argument isn't logically sound. If we say that Processes (A) has the subset of human initiated processes (B) and natural processes (C) then what you have done is state Since B is a subset of A and C is also a subset of A they must share trait Y. I ask why must they? If you cannot show that natural processes require an intelligence then natural processes aren't an indicator that all processes require an intelligence.
Created:
Posted in:
Part of the problem is that you appear to not understand the terms of evidence and what it entails.
Oh, I do, I just don't think what you claim as evidence indicates what you think it does. That's why I continue to question it.
It seems to me most people don't have a clear grasp how evidence is defined or how it's used to support ideas, or that evidence should only be some scientific study or demonstration that confirms how something works and that's not true. Evidence can be as simple as "anything presented in support of an assertion. There are two kinds of evidence: intellectual evidence (the obvious, the evident) and empirical evidence (proofs)."And while a person is free to categorize evidence as strong or weak it's still classified as evidence
Only if it supports the accuracy of your claim and is made of facts and information, an opinion isn't evidence for example.
For example, even though my pemise is supported by evidence (indicator) you ignore that evidence has been presented.Evidence is that which indicates a proposition true or at least valid, and I've used correlation as that which indicates intelligent processes requires a mind or thought behind them to support my premise. Correlation being that we associate processes with intelligence or a production with a producer and the processes being those we observe in the universe through science such as the birth and death of stars, formation of planets, arrangement of solar systems, ecosystems and the evolution of embodiments ect ect and I went over some of that in more detail. There is a very clear indicator (evidence) that the universe was produced by intelligence because that is what we see, that is the outcome of what we observe.
But your correlation isn't sound. It only works if you can show that because intelligence can be the initiating factor of a process then all processes must be initiated by an intelligence then you'd have a sound position. You correlate intelligence and processes, yet you cannot show this correlation in any natural processes, until you can why should we assume that there's correlation?
That premise above is supported by evidence. In this case we could classify it as obvious or evident evidence (intellectual evidence).
No, it's a claim. It would be evidence if you could show your correlation points to your claim, you can't at most you have shown that some processes are initiated by intelligences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
If that's what you believe my motivation is then this indeed is a waste of time.
I never spoke to your motivations at all. You stated
'Fair enough as long as you're content with a premise that you don't know why or how that's your choice.'
I'm saying that my happiness is neither here nor there when matters of what is true and what I should believe are (they should be as close as possible the same thing). Honestly your motivations aren't that relevant to my conclusion and I wouldn't presume to know what they are.
Created:
Posted in:
If you spent half as much time educating yourself what evidence entails and what a logical premise is rather than reading a book of supposed fallacies then this wouldn't be such a waste of time.
I'm aware of what evidence is, it's a body of facts and information that support a claim. We've discussed supposed evidence, but so far you've not been able to present any fallacy free argument why any of the things you've presented support your claim. As for a logical premise, I know what one is, I also know that an unsound premise is extremely dangerous to make an argument on. As for reading a book of supposed fallacies, I haven't had to, I've just taken the time to grasp logic to a point that I can at times see logical flaws, I've also discussed enough to know what some of these common flaws are commonly called. If you could address the flaws I present then the argument wouldn't be a waste of time, so far you don't seem to want to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Yes, the universe itself is an indicator of intelligence which produces intelligent processes.
How is it an indicator of intelligence? This seems to be begging the question (assuming your conclusion in the premise).
If processes occur and are produced, it is evident that thought was involved as it requires thought (intelligence/mind) to understand what it takes to develop a desired result or outcome and a mind to initiate a process itself.
This assumes intentionality in saying that certain results were 'desired' can you show this intentionality?
If that is the case then we have good reason to consider an infinite consciousness or awareness. Meaning all that we observe, are the products of an intelligent mind and all things come from that first foundation.
Again this seems to be dependent on natural processes having been initiated with a desired outcome, can you show that to be the case? Or do you conclude this because the outcome is one that you find desirous?
We can support that notion with what the universe itself has produced...intelligent processes and intelligent sentient creatures, ecosystems which support that role.
Ah, now this is a more interesting point. Are you arguing that intelligence couldn't have formed without an intelligence to have formed it? If so, can you show this claim to be verifiable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
But, my answer could very well be 4 and your skepticism that my answer could be accurate means very little especially when you have no answer to the equation at all. Which makes your doubt a bit irrational.
I haven't said that your answer couldn't be 4, but until it can be shown to be so it's not an accurate analogy. To present an analogy of my own. Let's say that we have a box, we don't know what's in the box, we've not seen inside of it and we cannot open it or otherwise interact with it for a week. Would it be logical to accept as true my statement that it contains a piece of art worth millions of dollars? Or would it be more logical to conclude that we don't know what's in the box? Would you be willing to quit your job for the box that might contain priceless art? Or would it be more logical not to make a conclusion until we know what's in the box? I would go with the latter. To continue to examine an uncertainty is often (not always, but often) better than accepting the only claim to come along.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
It IS perfectly logical to conclude that it requires thought and a mind to produce a process and a result, that is obvious and you can't show how they could occur without that factor. That is the strength behind the premise.
Unfortunately, it's not a strength it's another logical fallacy. It's an argument from ignorance 'you can't show how they could occur without that factor' isn't the same as saying they can't occur without that factor. If I were claiming they can occur without that factor you would have an argument, but that's not my position, my position is that you have not yet shown that they must have that factor. You still haven't in any way shown a logically sound argument that shows because processes can begin with an intelligence that processes must initiate with an intelligence. The above is a logical fallacy (argument from ignorance), you've also presented arguments from incredulity (to call it absurd without showing why it must be absurd is such an argument) and cited common sense (which I've addressed as having failed us before, it's good for a hypothesis, which should then be supported by logic and evidence, but it's not so reliable as support for logic).
Actually go back and reread that, it was thoroughly addressed. I gave you an answer as well as why it happens.
You never presented any way we can verify that it required an intelligence to happen, To break down the answer:
"Matter is intended to have a lifespan, where our experience of time is linear, that is the nature of matter it isn't eternal. So you won't find perfection really in creation, meaning things that last forever. The physical world will always be built for decomposing, it's built with material that doesn't last. This is just supposed to be a stepping stone, however the soul itself is eternal it moves forward as the physical body passes."
Notice nowhere does this give any way we can verify that the ageing process is the product of an intelligence. It does however make two claims it does nothing to support. Namely 'Matter is intended to have a lifespan' Can you show, not just claim, but show intentionality in the ageing process? And then another claim is 'This is just supposed to be a stepping stone, however the soul itself is eternal it moves forward as the physical body passes.' Can you verify any of that?
So, my question stands, can you show any way we can verify that the ageing process required an intelligence to initiate it? I understand that you believe it does, I understand that you find the alternatives to be absurd, but unless you can support them with facts and logically sound argument then you're presenting opinions, our opinions don't support a claims validity any more than others opinions don't invalidate it, only logic and evidence can do that.
Then it wasn't a hasty generalization.
It was by definition, a hasty generalization is a logical fallacy, if an argument commits the fallacy then it is a hasty generalization, regardless of how long you took to get to it. This is starting to look like a red herring semantics argument to avoid actually discussing the point though, so lets just be clear on my issue and you can address that. You haven't answered my question to you, why does the fact that processes can be initiated by intelligence mean all processes must be initiated by intelligence?
Not really, but does it warrant consideration rather than never knowing why processes occur at all?
I'm considering it now that's what this entire conversation is, I consider your proposition and present the logical fallacies. We would progress much better if you were to actually address the fallacies I present. Why not begin with the one above, it's important to note that you have to show that we can verify that your claim is sound, not simply that there's no other alternative that makes more sense, since that is an argument from ignorance (I'm sure you're aware of the logical fallacy in question).
You don't seem to be asking that I consider your position, but that I accept it as true, that is an entirely different request.
Fair enough as long as you're content with a premise that you don't know why or how that's your choice.
That's not the premise, that's the conclusion and it's logically sound. It's not about being happy, I don't base belief on what makes me happy, but on what is most likely to be accurate based on evidence and logic. When evidence and logic and be used to verify your premise then I'll believe it, until then I'll continue to make the logical conclusion that I cannot know if a creator was necessary or involved in the formation of the universe.
You haven't presented anything for me to believe it isn't sound.
I have presented a number of fallacies in your argument that you have simply ignored. That you seem to think you can resolve these with further claims or simply not address them doesn't resolve them or make them go away.
Lol round and round we go.
Yeah, we'll keep coming back to this pesky question until you answer it as it's the crux of your argument. You act as though you've answered it but you haven't. You have presented a reasons you believe it, but not reasons that it's logically better to believe it than to leave it as an unknown. To show that it warrants belief, you must show evidence and/or logical arguments that show it is most likely true, you haven't yet. You have argued that you believe an answer is better than no answer. I disagree with this. I would say a correct answer in better than no answer, yet I've yet to be given any reason an incorrect answer is better than no answer. 2+2=5 doesn't seem to be better than 2+2=?
I would go so far as to say I believe questions to be better than incorrect answers. If you accept an unknown you will continue to work to understand and achieve a correct answer, if you accept an incorrect answer then you will simply believe something that's incorrect. So, can you in any way show that processes require an intelligence (and this is the important part), without logical fallacies in your argument?
Created:
Posted in:
I haven't been on for a little while on this site, but through some quick reading... i like this discussion going on. Etrnl and i share similar philosophy on this matter, with our little differences. I really didn't read your conversation with him enough to know what you two are talking about exactly, so if i'm way off on my assumptions i guess you can correct me. Actually, from the quick skimming of the convo.. you sound a little like me. I think you just think there is no evidence or logical enough argument for a "higher" intelligence.
For a Creator to be more specific.
I'm also agnostic on this matter. I don't know. Yet, to me it's logical there are other intelligence's beyond our earth/reality. Maybe similar to us or not... primitive or more advanced... it's impossible we are the only intelligence in infinity. Infinity is more logical than something finite as well. Although they both hold there paradoxes, i think infinity has less. Interestingly, when you add intelligence to infinity, it makes more sense. I'll give an example. Infinite regress would be a thing, but if you have something intelligent manifesting reality through conscious process, well, then you are not linear... therefore, it doesn't matter if you had one big bang and than us... all this intelligence would have to do is want to have this reality and be there. Consciousness isn't linear, time is without consciousness.
Yet this assumes time being more than a property of this universe doesn't it? Causality is something we observe within this universe because one of the properties of this universe is time. The issue is ultimately that we have no way of knowing... Well anything about the state beyond this universe, with that in mind, logic tells me that we can't make a conclusion on if there is a creator or not, so the logical conclusion is that it's an unknown. Belief in the positive or the negative claim are unwarranted.
Anyways to why i quoted that specific line. If there is a platform beyond us, that manifests realities... i don't see how there could be "one" logical argument. It's like a video game. Which character has the truth, when each character is different. How would they prove we created them? Idk, Maybe it's just not time yet for us to prove a reality beyond ours. A logical argument leading to a pretty good truth may just not be in our present time. Yet, if there is a logical argument... then, we are at least the start of it. We may be putting the pieces together for the time there is one platform logical argument to what is beyond us. I think we should be trying to get to that, instead of lost on any one idea right now... we are still pretty monkey like. I have an assumption, a platform beyond us which is an infinite consciousness. I think a platform like that is the best we have right now.
And so such an assumption should be questioned. It shouldn't be seen as true because there is no better alternative. It should been seen as an hypothesis and scrutinized as such. I question the proposition EtrnlVw presents, so far it doesn't seem logically sound enough to warrant belief. An incorrect answer isn't better than the admission that we don't know.
To further an analogy EtrnlVw begun. If you ask what is 2+2, it's better to say I don't know than answer with 5.
As to evidence, if there is this infinite consciousness (IC), there should be some evidence. However, the complexities of an IC would make this part pretty wild. I've personally experienced event that should not be possible. Is that a delusion? Is that a hallucination? is it just something specific to me and my path? I think the last is most logical. However, it has nothing to do with you. How can we have an atheist scientist if said scientist saw a ghost? In an IC platform, everything exists... it would be everything and nothing. It would be the universe and the universe cannot distinguish bw something or nothing. That's why this platform is the most interesting to me at this moment.
It may be interesting, but do we have any reason to believe it to be true?
Anyways, what am i getting on about. I think it is logical at this point to suspect more so there is something beyond our reality, times that with infinity... then it's probably pretty insane. I do not think it's logical to say there are no good arguments or evidence for it bc that is personal to you. It makes you your character... which is the paradox. If i could convince you of my logic and/or arguments... you wouldn't be the you, you are now. People are capable of this change of character... but is it in your story? Maybe yes, maybe you die as exactly who you were suppose to be to this reality. So when i say it is more logical there is some sort of platform, and IC being convincing to me... do you see it?
It is logical to say I'm not aware of any evidence that is logical and/or verifiable though. Not to be rude, but it would seem that your position isn't constructive to discussion however as you cannot present evidence for your claims, you may claim you have evidence, but without being able to present it that is itself another claim, making it kind of useless to discuss the matter as neither can make meaningful points or ask meaningful questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
"No it's not, you may get that impression for whatever reason but it's hasty to say I haven't intelligently thought it out. Though again, the premise is simplistic and not overly complex I'm paying close attention to all things involved as I've been in this game for over a decade and not to mention considering Theistic theory since I was a young kid."
You misunderstand I think. Hasty generalization is the name for a logical fallacy, it has nothing to do with how long you've considered your argument. In this case it's a hasty generalization because you have made looked at some processes and seen that they were initiated by intelligence and then concluded from this that all processes must be initiated by intelligence, without ever addressing why this must be the case, or even why this conclusion is logical.
"I've carefully considered all sides and many angles and I am bringing to you the best possible scenario and conclusion despite you not being impressed by the lack of explanation."
Yet you haven't once directly addressed the logical fallacies I've presented. If rather than taking the position that your argument is certainly correct and as such you must only convince others to accept it, you were to approach it in terms of testing your argument against logical fallacies impartially then perhaps we would get somewhere at present however when an objection is brought up you seem either to dismiss it or simply make another claim to back it up, which leads to the bloat we've seen in our discussion.
A prime example would be my question of how you can observe the ageing intelligence behind the ageing process. You replied by addressing why you believe an intelligence would include an ageing process not actually presenting anything that shows an intelligence was involved in any way shape or form, only why if there is an intelligence involved it may have chosen to begin such a process. If you're unclear on the part of our discussion that I'm addressing let me know and I'll find the post and give the exact quotes since it's been a while.
Not that I want to repeat all this again but I just wanted to make it clear that your assumption isn't the most fair IMO, and not fair to all the thought I've put behind it and actually none of my thought processes are "hasty" I put a lot emphasis in thinking about all angles involved.
Again, to clarify, it wasn't a comment on how long you've spent on the argument, merely the name of a logical fallacy that's present in the argument.
"Correlation is correlation, at least I'm giving you some correlation to ponder and not just pandering to beliefs or dogma. This in fact should be interesting to you because had you found some satisfaction in the premise I could have then expounded on how it all works together. And I was hoping we could expand the discussion but I guess that's not in the cards at this time. Let me know though, since you were such a good sport maybe we could challenge other ideals. Not much going on in this forum anyways why not..."
Yet your correlation contains a logical fallacy, so it's not exactly one that warrants belief. The fact that I have pondered this is why I don't accept it. It's not about finding a premise satisfactory it's about finding it to be sound, unfortunately due to the logical fallacies I've discussed in our previous posts, which remain unresolved I cannot accept your premise as logically sound. You have in no way shown that all processes must be initiated by an intelligence and your premise requires that to be true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Not really, it takes a step deeper than that (or two). Just looking at the world and using the premise everything looks designed is not nearly as direct or effective. I'm using the actual processes we observe in the universe and correlating them with intelligence or a Creator, my premise isn't just about appearance there's an actual legit basis for my claim. I have never heard anyone ever correlate God with the processes and development within the universe but that's beside the point really.
Yet your correlation is a hasty generalisation. Saying intelligence can initiate processes doesn't establuah that intelligence is needed for processes to initiate. So far you seem to reply to this with arguments from ignorance (lack of an alternativr answer doesn't make your answer any more valid), or your assertion that it's common sense. That is an appeal to common sense which is only logicay sound if the claomed common sense is itself supported by evidence and logic. For exaample the asseftion thst intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence can only be soundly supported by common sense when logic and evidence show the common sense to be logically sound ajd verifiable (appeal to common sense is pretty much an argument from incredulity). That's not important to me personally at present though, I simply ask that you address the fallacies I present. Resolve them or concede them, either way I am happy, but at least address then with logical argument and evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
Once we agree that at least we have a logical premise I'll be happy with that.
When you say premise do you mean the statement
P1 The universe is developed by processes.
The statement
P2 All processes are associated with an intelligence.
Or the argument as a whole. Because the first two statements are premises those coupled with your conclusion are an argument.
For the record I'll gladly accept p1 if we use the Merriam Webster (or even better the cambridge) definition, but if I accept p1 then I cannot accept p2 since they don't logically match, at least not until you can present with logically sound arguments or verifiable facts that process must (note I say must not can) originate from an intelligence.
I don't question to win an argument, I don't present logical fallacies I've invented to undermine your argument, I simply point out what is there, you can either address these issues in your arguments or ignore them. Adressing them runs the risk of discovering your argument is unsound and cannot be logically sound, not addressing them means continuing to press a fallacious argument.
I cannot agree we have a logical premise in your argument because it has logical fallacies. The most I can honestly say is that premise 1 (the universe is developed by processes) seems to be sound. Though that invalidates premise 2 until such a time as we can show natural processes are associated with intelligence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
That's okay, you seem to want the last word on the discussion so be it, I don't think I need to say anymore.
It's not about the last word it's about trying to get to the point where your argument is logical and built on verifiable and sound claims, so far it isn't
Don't forget I'm establishing a fresh premise, this is my own argument even though you want to label it an assumption.
I don't want to label it anything, but it is something you accept as true without proof, that is the definition of an assumption.
This is an original premise (that I know of) so I don't have a supporting link or some scientific demonstration for you to rely on or fact check that's why we have to begin with common sense logic, the argument is as simplistic as I've made it. We're treading new grounds here, that's not to say that the God hypothesis hasn't been around longer than any other, though I'm trying to show you how and why it fits.
It's really just an argument from design, not particularly new. As for 'common sense'as I've said before we have plenty of examples where what common sense told us was later shown to be wrong, common sense is also an assumption (It's not based on proof or facts). You also ignore any fallacy I present, if your argument is logical then address the fallacies, show with sound argument why it is sound rather than using ad hominem accusations that I'm using fallacies to avoid the point.
Evidence, being defined as "that which indicates a proposition true or valid" is already justified. Logic has already been the tool used to undergird the premise....So we're half way there in terms of your demands, now all I need to do is get you to admit it's a logical conclusion and one that is more suitable than "I don't know".
Then present a position that's more suitable than I don't know. For all I know at present you're trying to answer 2+2 with 5. If you want to establish your argument as warranting belief then give it sound premises that lead to a logically sound conclusion that's verifiable. If you are sincere in that then directly address the following with verifiable answers (not more claims). Your two premises are
P1 The universe is developed by processes.
P2 All processes are associated with a mind or intelligence.
From this you conclude
C An intelligence must have begun the processes.
Premise one is sound depending on how we define process. If we use the merriam Webster definition of:
2a(1): a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result the process of growth
(2): a continuing natural or biological activity or function such life processes as breathing
However since this definition doesn't require an intelligence P2 becomes problematic since processes we see every day (the process of aging, decomposition or heat moving from one object to another) can't be shown to be associated with a mind or intelligence. Now we gave these points consideration before, but your reply to aging and decomposition was a claim:
Claim: matter isn't intended to last
Which is begging the question it assumes there is a mind associated while being used to support a claim that a mind must be associated, I suggest verifying one of these claims, then you can use that to help verify the other.
Strangely this was also a non-sequitur since it never actually addressed the initial claim directly.
From there, accepting a superior platform we can move the discussion forward, assuming you will have questions and concerns about God, religion, the soul ect ect….but for now I'm not going back over old grounds again and again.
We haven't been over old ground again and again. You've avoided frank and direct discussion, you blatantly dismissed the logical fallacies I have presented. You have neither resolved them, or shown why they aren't applicable to your arguments (as I did with your claims that I was using special pleading). Your entire argument at this point is an appeal to common sense (which is a logical fallacy itself).
What you consider to be 'common sense' may not be factually correct, it also may not be what other people consider common sense. What if someone were to argue that common sense says that if we can't observe a thing in any, or demonstrably show it exists we should conclude it doesn't exist (not personally my position, but certainly one I've seen presented). Before you can use common sense to verify your claims you must establish that your common sense is more than assumption.
Thank you for your time, I look forward to seeing how you address the logical fallacies of your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Sorry, the last couple of posts lost their headers. Though let us continue.
Let us begin by seeing what we can agree on. I take it we can both agree the universe exists, that we can determine reasonably reliable information about this universe through the use of logic and evidene?
Created:
Posted in:
Matter is intended to have a lifespan, where our experience of time is linear, that is the nature of matter it isn't eternal. So you won't find perfection really in creation, meaning things that last forever. The physical world will always be built for decomposing, it's built with material that doesn't last. This is just supposed to be a stepping stone, however the soul itself is eternal it moves forward as the physical body passes.
The start of this begs the question. What I mean by this is in laying out an argument one of your premsies cannot be dependent on the conclusion of your argument, since that is circular A is true because B and C are true. C is true because A is true. You seem to be assuming intentionality in the existence of matter, yet I don't believe you've established that can you?
Yes, an intended or desired outcome.
And what logical argument do you use to conclude that nature has intended or desired outcomes? We see that it has outcomes and some of them are fortunate for us, but why does that suggest intentionality or a desire in the cause of these processes?
Don't forget there are processes and there are effects, not all effects are the direct result of intelligence but the results of intelligent processes. So just because I say there must be intelligence for processes to occur doesn't necessarily mean everything we see take place is directed, for example even though the sun was created through a process, if you were to get burned from getting to close that's just an effect. Heat transference is an indirect process, meaning an effect having a cause.
No true scotsman, you dismiss it simply because it doesn't fit your argument. Can you show any intelligent process involved?
Why would you disrupt the flow of logic here from "we know intelligent beings can initiate a process" to now "no being is needed to initiate a process"? you have to follow the logic through, unless you intend to make the fallacy of special pleading... why make an exception for one? again you are content with accepting that processes occur all by themselves because of a chosen worldview, materialism, and not because it's rational.
Because it doesn't follow. You can easily disprove that claim by answering the following. Why does the fact that intelligence can initiate processes show intelligence must initiate processes. Lay out the logic. That's the beauty of logic, it can be laid out.
That's called special pleading. You're making an exception for the other.
Not at all, I haven't made any exception. That's why I have the position that it's currently an unknown. I don't assume any of the conclusions are correct nor as of yet that they must be incorrect. Let's avoid slipping on a read herring though and make sure this stays on topic. You seem to be arguing that because intelligence can initiate processes all processes must be initiated by processes, what is the logic for this? Why can't processes other than intelligence initiate processes?
But you can't explain your premise, you only have said my premise has no explanation yet when I ask you how processes occur on their own you say you don't know. Lol, at least I have an answer for it.
If someone answered what is 79429 divided by 45.67893 to seven decimal places what answer would be more honest, I don't know or 2000? If your answer isn't logically sound, if you can't show why your answer is sound then why does it have more value than an honest admission that I don't know? You say: 'At least I have an answer.' I ask why is it better to have an answer that can't be shown to be true than to admit that you don't know?
My premise is easily explained. I want to know that what I accept as true is supported by facts and logically sound reasoning. This is why I don't accept the claim that the universe was the product of an intelligence, or the claim that the universe formed without one.
Now your last sentence in the above quote claims
Processes occur because of an intelligent agent always, there is no exception to that rule because processes occurring all by themselves is an absurdity.
This is certainly your claim. Now can you show any of the above to be logically true and verified by evidence?
I'm going to address this next, sorry my reply is out of order posting from work on my phone and long scrolls of text are hard to manage.
Good ole common sense is how we establish the validity of a claim or lack thereof. We need common sense to reach a logical conclusion, then we move forward.
I would say evidence and logic are how we verify common sense. Common sense once told us the earth was flat, it once told us that the Sun circled the earth and that there was a planet between Mercury and the sun that caused Mecury to wobble. It was logic and evidence that showed us that common sense was wrong in these cases.
That's basically what your premise is, somehow processes gathered inanimate materials and began producing themselves, eventually into intelligent creatures. If that process DIDN'T come from nothing, then why and where did it come from?
Again this is a strawman. You're swinging at air rather than attacking my position. Your question to me is pointless, it is a logical fallacy in the form of an argument from ignorance. That I cannot give an answer doesn't validate your answer, if your answer is sound and supported by evidence then it will warrant belief. Ultimately my claim is that I have no way in which I can logically and with any degree of reliability determine how the universe or processes therein originated this position is logically sound and supported by the evidence I am currently aware of. The only way to invalidate this position is to provide a logically sound and verifiable argument for a claim. This hasn't been done, as there are many points of your argument you haven't been able to verify and logical fallacies I have presented that remain unresolved
@EtrnlVw
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, it's nonsensical. Intelligence can't just spontaneously create itself unless you believe in magic, do you not see the value in that assessment?
It's an argument from incredulity, the fact that you don't believe a thing is possible doesn't mean it's not possible. Do you have actual logical arguments or evidence for that conclusion. I would add it's the same argument I've heard from some atheists against god with no more or less logic to it.
why do you think IT CAN, is the appropriate question. You want me to give you some explanation outside of commonsense when in fact you should be asking yourself how can it. It's self-explanatory.
Actually the appropriate question would seem to be how can we determine how what we observe came to be? It's equally fitting to ask how can an intelligence begin natural forces. Rather than answer 'it's self explanatory' (which is no explanation at all, I conclude it's unknown, which at this point seems the most logical conclusion.
You can label it an assumption, but yes I believe it is common sense.
It's a belief based on something other than facts or reasoning, that is why it is an assumption. The problem is atheists could claim their common sense tells them god doesn't exist. Why is your common sense more reliable? Common sense is why people believed in Vulcan, common sense is a pretty specialized tool, which experience suggests isn't well equipped for handling cosmology or quantum mechanics.
That is an assumption, we've been over that already. The acceptance that the processes in nature occurring all by themselves is materialism, which is a worldview meaning it's derived from your own interpretation. Science doesn't claim that, it just shows how the processes work, not why they exist or why they even occur at all.
No, it would be an assumption for me to state we have processes that aren't initiated by an intelligence, what I said is based on the fact that as of yet no one has been able to show that an intelligence is involved. From this I conclude it's unknown if an intelligence is involved. This doesn't require me to accept materialism it simple means I continue to question, to seek logically sound arguments supported by evidence.
If you don't know why processes occur or how they could ever generate themselves and I know that processes only occur through an agent my position is superior, how can you not see that? remember, if we were asked what is 2+2 and you said you don't know and I said 4, I have the superior calculation. So, no, it's not immaterial to my premise, you have no answer or reason to accept what you have accepted. I do have a reason and an answer for the premise I have accepted
We've been over why this analogy isn't accurate. 2+2=4 isn't a strong claim because of any other claim? It's a strong claim because it can be shown to be correct, just as 2+2= (insert anything other than 4) is a weak argument because it can be shown to be false. To say an argument is made stronger because of the lack of or incorrectness of other arguments is an argument from ignorance and as such fallacious. To put it another way, can you show your answer is 4 and not any other number? Until you can your analogy isn't fitting and either way your argument is fallacious.
Also, this is a strawman, or at least a very severe misunderstanding of my position. What I have accepted is that unfortunately I have no way to verify any of the claims made in regards to the existence or non-existence of god, to follow your analogy, I don't know which answer is four and it seems more logical to admit that I don't know than to keep insisting an answer is right when I could be trying to argue 2+2=5. I am not forced to accept anything. The question is how can you show your calculation is superior? You can claim it, but you haven't yet addressed it.
Read above.
The above was an argument from ignorance and a false analogy (as had been pointed out before). Your argument is only strong if it's supported by logically sound arguments and evidence. Can you present either for your claims (see my above replies for the fallacies I've proposed that you haven't actually addressed).
Already went over that.
So common sense again? No evidence or logically sound augmentation?
I have been verifying it by giving you examples of production as associated with intelligence, and by appealing to your rational mind that things can't just produce themselves. Why you believe they can is beyond me, especially when you say you don't know why. I mean I don't really understand why you wouldn't think my premise is not superior unless you believe in magic. That things can create themselves.
Strawman: Not arguing for things creating themselves, not accepting unintelligent origins, I hold we have yet to establish how the forces that create the things we observe originated, attacking any other premise is to attack arguments I haven't made, please, address my position rather than some other position.
Argument from incredulity: You repeatedly argue that it's absurd that the idea of unintelligent forces getting the results we observe is impossible and absurd, got any logical argumentation or evidence to back that up? If not it's a fallacy.
Argument from ignorance: As said before the lack of or invalidity of other premises doesn't make yours stronger. An argument is only valid when it can be shown to be valid.
False dilemma: You keep trying to equate not accepting your argument with accepting the counter argument (this may be what's leading to your straw man). I don't accept either of these positions. My position is that so far I've been presented with no logical argument with supporting evidence to prove a creator was, or wasn't involved in the creation of the universe.
It's commonsense. I keep pointing that out but that's what it is. If you disagree then my whole premise is probably not going to resonate with you. I tell you look at the results, it produces intelligence.....the very process itself aims to produce what would be the product of forethought, you so far seem content in accepting that an intelligent production occurred all on its own. That's the absurdity of it, nothing occurs all by itself, certainly not processes that produce intelligent results, you may call it an assumption but at least it's commonsense.
And I keep pointing out that common sense is unreliable, that is why it should be supported by logical arguments and evidence.
Okay, I respect your opinion. But, if we don't use common sense to support a conclusion what should we begin with?
There is the crux of the matter and why I used the term unsupported common sense. You can make an assumption based on common sense, but it is just an assumption until such a time as it is supported by logically sound arguments and evidence. To be clear, I don't argue that this assumption is false, I simply question how we can determine it's an accurate claim.
Created:
Posted in:
You just answered that, it is that simple. It doesn't need a complicated answer this is simply common sense. Truth is simplistic and logic doesn't need to be complex.....if it is logical to believe that a process like evolution can be connected with an intelligent Agent then you have good reason to consider it period. If I'm to show you there is a Creator involved in the universe my premise has to be concise and solid and I think we are in that ballpark. Now, it's just a matter of getting your attention and switching your perspective around, the premise itself is already logical and
Do you have a logical argument for why intelligence can't originate from an unintelligent sorce? Or do you aasume it based on perceived common sense? You are right however that claims should be considered. That is why am considering your claim. You seem to be forgetting the still unaddressed argument from incredulity (you can't believe it's not possible so it's not possible), the argument from ignorance (you can't provide an answer so my answer should be taken as valid) and the fact that we observe processes in nature that so far can't be shown to be initiated by an intelligence. My question had no answer in it. It stands why does evolution suggest an intelligence be involved. I haven't been presented with any reason it does.
My issue is unsupported common sense is simply assumption. That isn't a solid basis in my opinion for claims of truth.
Created:
Posted in:
First of all the definitions themselves are irrelevant to the conclusion, I was just using the definitions to show what I mean by a process. The definitions aren't what is validating the argument, it's the rationale that's supporting the argument. I'm showing that intelligence was involved by asking you to consider the intelligence by what they produce, and that it's silly to accept that processes occur all by themselves. I reinforced that idea by correlating what we know about processes in our daily observations.
Except you haven't addressed where we can observe the intelligence in the aging process or the processes that allow plants or animals to grow, or decomposition or heat transference or... I think we can stop there for now. In the hope of moving on and since the definition doesn't matter, we can say I accept your definition of process for the purposes of this discussion as long as you agree not to uae the term process for anything you can't verify fits your definition. Though I will require one clarification, when you say
Processes would include anything undergone that would bring about an end result
Do you mean an intended end result?
If you don't think there is any rationale connected with processes being associated with intelligence then we have to agree to disagree, to me it is blatantly obvious but I can't make you believe that if you don't want to. I don't believe that any processes could just occur, to me, all the things we know of that are associated with processes and development are associated with an agent and again, I'm extending that premise to the universe and its processes. This is to give you something to think about in terms of a Creator, rather than atheism. In other words I'm trying to make sense of it for you, and show you how what you know about the universe is compatible with a Creator
It's not that I don't think there's any, i just don't think that any has been presented. The issue is that there's the no true scotsman that you don't factor in natural processes that we see every day, such as heat transference, aging growth, heat transference and so on and so on. My question to you has been why because intelligent beings can initiate processes does it follow all processes must be initiated by intelligence? What I put to you is that because A can initiate B doesn't mean only A can initiate B, perhaps there's a C or D that can as well. Or perhaps we lack enough information to formulate any reliably accurate idea about B might be initiated.
I generally believe if an answer is that it's obvious and upon critical consideration I'm unable to explain the reason it's obvious then it's time to begin giving it critical reevaluation, or take view it as an opinion.
Well if I'm to give you hope about a Creator or a God, then I have to show that it is worth considering. I have to show why creation is superior to your current belief or worldview. So the very proposition itself is to get you to look at the obvious, and hopefully can give you a platform ponder. Again, this is all obvious to me, since evolution itself creates intelligence how does it do that?
I don't know, but then I'm not a biologist, but again if I know or not is immaterial to the validity of your claim. 2+2=5 isn't made valid if i know the answer or not.
I've been answering this along time now, the rationale behind it is within pages of this very thread. TBH I don't know how to make it any clearer, sometimes you seem to get and then you just ask the question again as if you never got it lol. You seem willing to consider it I just don't know why you want me to keep repeating it.
The reason it seems to be that I understand your argument is that I believe I do. The reason that I keep asking that you answer my question is because you haven't directly. You seem to equate the lack of a counter proposition as evidence for your proposition, which isn't logically the case, that I can't answer a question doesn't make any other answer more or less valid. That's an argument from ignorance. The question keeps getting asked because the question is still valid and unresolved.
Basically I'm saying that I don't believe that those processes could occur naturally, without an intelligent source because I understand that inanimate forces don't generate intelligent products, that speaks for itself albeit it is my opinion.
If by intelligent products you mean things created by an intelligence then of course you are right, but then in the context of this discussion it's also circular. I would ask again how we verify anything that exists in nature was intended? If you mean processes created intelligence, then I ask why does intelligence need to stem from intelligence? What is the reasoning to conclude this.
I think that in order for you to accept that, you have to show how and why that could happen, your answer is that "you don't know" and that alone should help you in this discussion. I'm using your own assumption that they do occur all by themselves against you, by having you consider the alternative.
I think this is part of our problem. You are trying to attack an assumption I don't hold. You can't make your premise appealing by dismissing others, you can only do so by showing it to be supported by logically sound evidence. For example, explaining why the fact processes can be initiated by intelligences suggests they must be would be a good first step or showing where the intelligence is in the natural processes we observe daily.
Having you consider a superior premise that they occur through an intelligent Source, otherwise there would be no process, this universe would not exist without God
What we have here is a consideration of your premise. As of yet I'm seeing a number of logical fallacies (I've noted them in past posts, but can list them and their contexts again in a post if you'd like?), I have yet to see anything superior to the proposition that we lack the means to come to conclusion that's logically sound and verifiable.
I think that it is necessary that there be an agent if a process were to occur because it takes intelligence to generate or create anything, there has to be an intelligent factor to figure it out and then to implement it put the materials together and then begin to construct, again it's just good ole commonsense there's nothing too complicated about it
My question is can you verify your premise that it takes an intelligence to generate or create anything? Can you back this up with logic and supporting evidence or is it just good ole fashioned common sense (which we know from experience can be wrong)?
The alternative would be to believe that something could build itself into existence, that something inanimate could begin a process of development and I'm trying to show you that to accept that is absurd.
This is almost disingenuous at this point to my knowledge no one here is claiming something came from nothing, so that's a straw man. The rest is an argument from absurdity.
I propose rather than simply state opinions we have a frank discussion without any presuppositions in regard to what's absurd and what isn't and establish that through reason and evidence and see where that takes us with some applied critical thinking?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
In an effort to once again consolidate our discussion and keep it on point and ensure that we understand each other, I am going to make a final effort to address this discussion in a way that I hope will be clear to you and explain why I question your claims.
We began this with you saying accepting that that the universe is developed by processes and that processes are always associtated with a mind or intelligence.
My point of contention is that while you can argue that either of these positions is true depending on how we define them they become mutually exclusive unless you can show intelligence associated with those processes involved in developing the universe.
So far you have addressed this by pointing the world around us and suggesting that they are all associated with an intelligence.
I already gave you some examples, I can associate them with intelligence by what they produce, the outcome. Evolution for example, just look in the mirror, wah-lah there's an intelligent, sentient being. That is the production of evolution, same can be said for all other living creatures. Look at the eco-system and how its designed and how it accommodates all living things, look at Earth, it has a light and heat source including the reflection of the moon so we're never in complete darkness. It contains water, food and all the necessary components that living things can flourish.
The evolution of life is a clever choice since it is (albeit in a very round about way) possible to show it has an association with intelligence, though I ask why this suggests it was initiated by an intelligence? The same question applies to the other examples you have given. Ultimately if you simply deduce that the end result of natural processes leads to the conclusion that natural processes require an intelligence then I ask why? What is your reasoning and argumentation to get to that conclusion? This is the crux of your argument. So I ask (with every hope that you'll answer) why does any feature developed by natural processes show an intelligence was necessary?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Of course it does silly, I have an answer and you don't. If someone asked us what is 2+2 and your answer was I don't know and mine was 4 who's answer is stronger?? just because you're not acknowledging my answer as a legit one means basically nothing.
That is pretty much the definition of an argument from ignorance. The answer 4 to the question what is the result of 2+2 is strong because it is correct and can be demonstrated to be so. If I have an answer or not is immaterial to its strength. To follow your analogy, if I answered with I don't know and you answered 5 would your answer be stronger? An argument is not made strong by the lack of strength or even the demonstrable inaccuracy of other arguments, it's made strong by its own merits. If I know how processes can initiate without an intelligence or not, if I know if it's even possible for processes to initiate without an intelligence or not, does absolutely nothing to validate your claim.
As for my not accepting your claim I don't suggest it means anything to its validity, I haven't even stated I believe it to be incorrect. The logical fallacies I have pointed out in your argument however do bring its validity into question, you haven't addressed any of them, which is your prerogative, but I was under the impression that we were considering your claims to do that we need to get to grip with the logic, see if it is sound or not and considering the fallacies I've presented (which you seem to be ignoring). I'd very much like to see how you address the fallacies I've presented, since resolving them is the only way to make it logical to conclude your conclusion is correct.
God creates and forms things just like any creator or artist or builder. There is first a desire and then a plan, God gathers the necessary materials and begins the process of constructing them, then the result. Once you fully understand the nature of what God is this is much easier to conceptualize.
I think you're getting ahead of yourself here. We're discussing your argument that processes develop the universe and that all processes are associated with a mind or intelligence. This claim doesn't seem to address either of those points it's simply another claim.
I already gave you some examples, I can associate them with intelligence by what they produce, the outcome. Evolution for example, just look in the mirror, wah-lah there's an intelligent, sentient being. That is the production of evolution, same can be said for all other living creatures. Look at the eco-system and how its designed and how it accommodates all living things, look at Earth, it has a light and heat source including the reflection of the moon so we're never in complete darkness. It contains water, food and all the necessary components that living things can flourish
So you can show that any of those outcomes were intended? If you can I would be very impressed I'll admit, so far the only arguments I've seen are arguments from ignorance and arguments from incredulity. I have yet to see any reason presented that these results are necessarily or must logically be the product of an intelligence, again how do you verify such necessity?
I mean for God sakes planets.....PLANETS, what is a planet? why would a planet create itself lol? a planet is a giant habitat for things to potentially live on, the way they are set into orbit so that gravitation may take effect....stars how they seed the universe continually, they provide heat, elements and matter as they are born and as they die. I could go on and on but these are things obviously associated with thought and intelligence.
This seems to start with a straw man. I believe I've already pointed out that certainly I and to my knowledge no one else is claiming planets form themselves.
Then we head nicely into an argument from incredulity, just because you can't see how it can be so doesn't mean it cannot be so. Then there's an argument from ignorance (you can't provide an answer so I win by default) Though it's somewhat interesting, I assume by why you mean for what purpose? If so I find myself wondering how we can determine purpose is necessary or present? If you mean by what cause then I would point out that you have already had a discussion on what causes planets to form, until purpose can be shown to be necessary then the how can reasonably be the why.
As for it being obvious that the things you listed are associated with an intelligence, can you present the arguments to show how you conclude this? Or do you mean it's obvious because you feel it should be this way?
I'm using the term to distinguish our own world observations of productions and development and extending that premise to the universe to show you how processes are always associated with a mind or intelligence. You know, like that which takes place on the earth in regards to its inhabitants. I thought maybe you'd have picked up on that already.
So you don't mean the real world and concede that natural processes occur in the real world? And are instead referring to processes initiated by humans. So I would point out again, you have shown good, solid evidence for the claim that an intelligence can initiate processes. Now and please address this as it's vital, how do you show that the fact an intelligence can initiate processes suggests in any logical way that an intelligence must initiate processes. This seems to be a Pars pro Toto Fallacy, meaning that you're assuming what is true for part (processes initiated by humans) is true for the whole (all processes in this case). This doesn't necessarily logically follow. Also, can you show the intelligence associated with the aging process? I (unfortunately) see that every day it seems, but I've yet to be able to see any intelligence associated with it.
That's what I am referring to. At this point I have to wonder if you're just trolling me. Let me know when you catch up. This is beginning to fall into the categories of obnoxious and monotonous.
My point, which you keep missing is that by the definition you provide the only processes that we know of are those made by humans. You assert that the universe is developed by processes. I have been asking that you show us one natural process that fits your definition of a process. If you can't then we have two options we can logically come to. One is that nothing in nature can currently be shown to be a process (using your definition, not necessarily the cambridge or webster dictionary definitions). Or we can conclude that nature does contain processes and your definition isn't suitable. This is important to your premises that A the universe is developed by processes. Since according to your last post we can agree that only that made by humans can be shown to fit your definition of process this position can only be both true and fit your definition if you can either show something in nature that has verifiable intentionality. Or you wish to argue that something made by humans develops the universe (since you have made the point that only things made by humans can be shown to fit your definition of process). Following from that your statement all processes are associated with a mind or intelligence either becomes a non sequitur (if you conclude that no processes were involved in the development of the universe as you define process) or you're argiung humans made the universe, which will lead to the discussion of how you could verify that. Personally I prefer the definitions that include something descriptive of what we observe in natural processes, but that definition makes acceptance of your second premise (all processes are associated with a mind or intelligence). TLDR: How ever you spin , your two premises can't be shown to both be true unless you can verify that all natural processes can be shown to be associated with a mind or intelligence.
Going forward perhaps you should try presenting premises and then discussing with me why you think they lead to a conclusion, complete with addressing my questions and the logical fallacies I point out. Then we might manage to get off the starting spot.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, by the very products we have in our world. I can't even believe anyone could ask that with a straight face. How are processes NOT intelligent, can you answer that? how could something of no intelligence produce something? in order for there to even be a production in the first place there needs to be a producer...how can something produce itself?
Ah, no the initiator of a process may be intelligent, but that doesn't mean the process is intelligent. If it is an interaction of forces then we've no way to show that it has any intelligence, so we can only tell that there is any association between a process and intelligence if we are able to verify that the process is initiated by an intelligence, something you haven't yet been willing to do with any process not initiated by humans. Can you? Also you end this with a straw man, I've never claimed anything produces itself. This may be a false dichotomy on your part, let me ask you this, why can't something be produced by unintelligent interactions of forces?
Again this is showing me you're not getting a very simple idea. I'm not saying the processes themselves are intelligent, I'm saying the processes occur through an intelligent source just like you said above, HUMANS INTINIATE PROCESESS, I'm extending that same premise to the universe! GOD INITIATES PROCESSES.
The big difference is that you're claiming processes occur only through an intelligent source. What I am asking is how can you verify that? We see many things that you call processes in nature that lack any sign of intelligent involvement. On what grounds are you extending the premise?
Yes, if it is indeed intended, then there needs to be someone that intended it. We can show that by the results of any given process, that it had intention.Intentiona thing intended; an aim or plan.what one intends to do or bring aboutAn aim that guides action; an objectivethe end or object intended; purpose.Intention involves mental activities such as planning and forethought or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result.Intentions", "Intent", "Purpose"To me, it's obvious the processes that have occurred in the universe had an intended purpose or intention, just by observing the results.
How do you determine that the formation of planets must have been the product of intention? Or life, or galaxies or... Well anything in nature? To say that you think it's obvious isn't a logical argument at all, do you have a logical argument or is this just your opinion?
Created:
Posted in:
Part of my answer is to ask you a common sense question, how could any inanimate force (or a nothing) create, generate or produce a process in the first place? for there to be a process, there needs to be first a plan, then a curse of action to bring that process to fruition and of course to completion. Inanimate forces and elements can't think on their own, they can't plan and generate intelligent processes all by themselves. All the processes we see take place in the real world originate first with an intelligence whether that be with a human or a creature.
The answer to your question is simple. I don't know, but then I also don't know how an intelligence could initiate the formation of planets, galaxies or evolution. This is an argument from ignorance and in no way makes your claim stronger.
As for consolidating this, you can do it by answering one simple question. Can you show anything in nature that can be shown to fit your definition of process (not simply has been called a process by others, but can actually fit your definition of process), including being associated with an intelligence?
Also you're again misusing the term 'real world' unless you don't think the formation of planets occurs in the real world? If you do then I would point out that we see can observe no intelligence in that process so your argument fails.
Everything we know of in the real world is generated, manufactured, developed, produced, constructed through a plan, then materials, then a process to get from a plan to materials to a result or finished product.I'm extending that same premise to creation or the universe. What is there to be unsure about? where did I leave room for any inconclusiveness? I can't make it any simpler or easier to get.
Actually only that made by humans can be shown to fit that description. Can you demonstrate the intelligence in the growing of a tree? Or anything else in nature?
No, you're looking at the fact that humans apply intelligence to create and using that to conclude that everything must be created. A simple question (to help with our efforts to consolidate). Why does the fact that intelligence can initiate processes demonstrate the the formation of planets, galaxies or evolution required an intelligence? What is your logical argument for that?
So far, no one has been able to give me a straight answer to the above question other than they just accept or believe that it does happen, or to lecture me what is involved in a given process. That's not what I'm asking....How does a process occur at all without intelligence? show me how that happens. I want to know right at the moment something begins to generate a process what generated or initiated that occurrence, if you have no real answer then the proposition I'm laying out should be considered as a legitimate one.
This is a false dichotomy. An argument isn't taken as valid simply because there's no other valid argument, that dismisses the possibility of the position that it's inconclusive/unknown. You are also making the argument from ignorance. That I don't know how a thing is done doesn't mean a thing is done. Your position only becomes valid when you can show that it's valid, can you show any reason an intelligence is involved in the formation of anything in nature (as in not made by humans)? It's totally unimportant to the argument if I or anyone else can explain how processes (again I believe this is an equivocation fallacy, can you show that when the quotes you used were using the term process they meant to associate it with an intelligence, rather than simply meaning: 'a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner' if not it's disingenuous to try to use that wording to further your argument.
Because ultimately there is no alternative, the answer is right smack in your face. Intelligence is what generates processes, we know that because we have our own experience of that in the real world.
No, our experiences show that intelligence can create processes, we've not got any evidence that only intelligence can create processes and in all of nature (that not made by human) we've not got one example of a process that can be shown to be associated to an intelligence have we?
If what I have said ISN'T logical I don't know what you would be convinced by TBH. I mean it doesn't get any more logical than what I just pointed out, what I've been saying the whole time.
I've addressed several logical flaws in your position that you have simply ignored, there's the no true scotsman of dismissing natural processes from the consideration when establishing if processes must be associated with intelligence (they're examples of a process, yet you've not shown one that can be shown to be associated with an intelligence, so you simply state the don't count without presenting any logical argument for why). You have equivocation fallacies (you haven't established that any of the sources you've cited were using your definition of process or in any way trying to suggest intelligence was involved in the formation of any of the things you've mentioned). You've begged the question in past posts and you've got the argument from ignorance. Oh, I almost forgot the argument from incredulity. None of these lead to any a conclusion that can be shown logically to be true.
Going back to the root of all this. Can you show A) that the universe is developed by (or barring what humans do even shows examples of) processes as you define process? If not then how can you conclude the universe is developed by processes (I'm looking for a logical argument that requires you to show that the processes in question fit your definition, not simply that other people use the term process for them, that would be either an equivocation fallacy, or else simply mean other people were making the same claim as you, not that it had in any way been substantiated). B) If you decide to continue to hold premise A (the universe is developed by processes) as true, then can you show that processes must be associated with intelligence? I would point out the processes that develop the universe as an example of processes in which no intelligence can be shown to be involved.
An assumption would be to make an assertion without any reason or proof, that is an insult to my intelligence and quite frankly I'm sick of the accusation altogether. There's plenty of reason to consider what I'm saying, I just laid it out above. The proof of the premise is much more complicated because my beliefs don't actually rest on this one argument. I believe the proof that God exists can be seen at many different angles so because I have already found it convincing and know that God exists I'm giving you a foundation or platform to consider that removes the idea that somehow processes can occur all by themselves. It's based on common sense not necessarily proof, at the same time I'm not making an assumption. Even if it were just an assumption that doesn't really mean it ain't true.
I've presented logical fallacies within your argumentation that you've yet to address, this means your logic is questionable at best. Have you got proof beyond your logical arguments? If not then it's an assumption. For that matter can you present your argument in a formal fashion so we can more carefully address if it's logical or not? Also what exactly is this common sense you keep addressing? Common sense tells me that if A cannot be verified to be there then barring an immediate need (such as for the sake of safety) then there's not logical reason to assume A. In this case A would be an intelligence involved in the initiation of natural processes.
At some point you should be willing to accept the reasoning behind what I'm saying, at least to move forward in the discussion.I don't have to show that processes don't just occur all by themselves, it's silly to even accept that they do because I know they don't, it's supported by the fact that everything that we know of that was developed had a developer.....cars don't just invent themselves, buildings don't just build themselves, construction doesn't just construct itself, processes don't just produce themselves ect ect That's why I'm appealing to common sense logic. I can show you all the materials and processes involved in any given product like I can show you the materials and processes involved in the products of the universe but all those things had a producer.
I would point out you're making an assumption that the universe was 'developed' that's something of a loaded term. We see many things grow and form that don't show any indication of an intelligence in their formation. This still suffers from your tendency to only include human made items in your argument, again, can you show the intelligence behind a growing tree? What about a fire from lightning? Or anything else we see form in nature? Your last sentence is a claim. Can you show that anything not made by humans had a producer? Or is this supposition on your part? Before you jump to 'show me something that wasn't produced by an intelligence' I would point to anything that formed without human or animal involvement as being examples of why we can't conclude the necessity of an intelligence in the formation of nature, we are only able to logically conclude that intelligence can create, not that all things that form must be creations of intelligence. Can you present your argument for why this must be the case? As for what I should be willing to accept, that's quite simple. I am willing to accept your reasoning when it's sound and supported by logical arguments that are fallacy free. In short address the fallacies I've brought up in past posts and we'll get there. I would suggest presenting your claims as formal arguments so we may more accurately and logically deconstruct and consider them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
A yes would have done. However, I question your position you keep asserting that all processes are associated with an intelligence. How do you associate the formation of anything in nature with an intelligence. Also can you show that the definitions you've given are using your definition of process or a definition that requires intelligence? If not then you're making an equivocation fallacy, if they are then I question how anyone determines that which you've listed is associated with an intelligence? In short you've got yourself a semantic argument that doesn't seem able to lead to any logical conclusions.
Processes do not occur all by themselves, it takes an intelligent source or operator to produce and direct results in a definitive manner. Nothing builds (evolves) itself into existence that has no way of planning, manufacturing or accomplishing that which would entail intelligence.
Unless evolution, the formations of planets and galaxies and all the other processes in nature do of course. Can you show they don't, or is this just an assumption on your part?
Evidence (which includes the above assessments as well)="that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.""something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign""information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid""something presented in support of the truth or accuracy of a claim"=Observations of real life activities (independent of nature, since I'm arguing that those are the processes of a Creator), real life productions, real life manufacturing, real life creations (art), real life development, real life construction, real life building, real life assembly ect ect, we know from real world observations that all those things require there to be a source to begin, evolve and accomplish anything.Every single result of a production (process) in our real world I can present the originator of, not a single thing that has been produced can be shown to have created itself.
All your observation shows is that humans can initiate processes, it doesn't in any way show or suggest that all processes are initiated by intelligence. To dismiss those processes not initiated by humans is a logical fallacy (no true scotsman). All processes are valid for consideration logically speaking, so I ask can you show an intelligence associated with evolution, the formation of planets or the formation of galaxies?
Ultimately when you can show any processes that wasn't initiated by humans that can be associated with an intelligence then your argument has legs until then you can't show that all processes are associated with intelligence. Have you got any such process?
Can anyone show or produce evidence of anything in the real world producing itself without a producer, creator, developer, manufacturer, builder, designer ect ect?
Produce themselves is somewhat malformed as a question, we can't see anything produce itself even with an intelligence, what we can see however are planets formed without any sign of intelligence. To dismiss this is a no true scotsman argument (it dismisses anything that doesn't fit your argument).
In our real life experience everything that brings about a result requires intelligence, so why when it comes to the productions of the universe is anyone willing to that fact?
The formation of planets and galaxies is real life and you've yet to show any intelligence associated with them?
Science doesn't claim processes occur all by themselves, it examines how things operate and reports an accurate depiction of that alone, it makes no claims or objections about a possible God. Science is a method WE use, it has no mind or knowledge of its own, it just examines what we feed it and what we put into it. It reveals what ingredients are in a recipe but makes no reference to a maker because that's not a factor it can reach. To make the assumption that the scientific method exempts God or a Creator from the equation is to abruptly inject ones own presumptions. Science is not atheistic, it is a neutral study meaning that it is not only compatible with Theism but it shows the processes of how God creates things.
I haven't made any claims that science does. What I have done is ask you how you verify your claims. So, I ask again can you verify that the processes we see in nature are associated with an intelligence. Since your exclusion of natural processes is a no true scotsman fallacy unless you can present a reason for not including them. You are asserting all A require B. For that to be sound you must show that all A must in fact require B. In this case all processes are valid even the ones you're questioning. You still can't show your assertion that all processes are associated with an intelligence, if you can't then your argument flounders, so far you haven't.
All this aside, I make no presumptions, I don't presume that the universe is a product of design or that isn't. I would say with the information we have available and the existence of the flaws in your logic (I've raised them in previous paragraphs and posts) the only logical conclusion that I can make is that the origins of the universe and the necessity of a creator is an unknown. When you can show a process not initiated by humans that is associated with an intelligence then you have an argument, until then you're simply showing that intelligence can initiate processes rather than that all processes are the product of intelligence.
It is completely rational and logical to embrace a Theistic proposition of creation. Nothing ever comes from nothing since there was always something (intelligence/awareness) out of which all processes occur, this is a superior platform to any other hypothesis than to accept that somehow inanimate forces of nature developed intelligent processes. In a nutshell, all the things mentioned above have an intelligent cause and a rational reason why anything or any processes even begin and produce results. Evolution is also NOT an atheistic proposition even though it is presumed by atheists. Evolution too is a process that brings about a desired intelligent ends and results, it is by this very process how God plans and achieves that which It wants to create. It is by that very process why you even exist as a human, why we have the benefit of looking out into creation to observe the many beautiful species that exist as they do.
Can you verify there was always something or is this an assertion? So far you've shown no reason it's more logical to conclude that god created the universe than to conclude that we don't know how the universe came to be. A position that doesn't require any presupposition and so far seems to be backed by all the reasoning and evidence I'm aware of.
As for your statement 'this is a superior platform to any other hypothesis than to accept that somehow inanimate forces of nature developed intelligent processes' I must who is asserting that the processes are intelligent? How do you know the processes are intelligent? Can you demonstrate that any process is intelligent? Humans initiate processes, but do you propose that the processes themselves are intelligent, if so can you substantiate that claim? If not then your question doesn't work. However if you mean processes that lead to an intended result then can you show the result of any natural process is intended and not simply the result of unintelligent forces interacting with each other? You're making a lot of claims, but so far you don't be seeming to show any reason they should be accepted as verifiable.
You say 'Evolution is also NOT an atheistic proposition even though it is presumed by atheists. Evolution too is a process that brings about a desired intelligent ends and results, it is by this very process how God plans and achieves that which It wants to create.' Are you able to show evolution has an intended result or do you just assume this because it gets a result you approve of? As for 'It is by that very process why you even exist as a human, why we have the benefit of looking out into creation to observe the many beautiful species that exist as they do.' This seems neither here nor there.
As for this: 'it is by this very process how God plans and achieves that which It wants to create. It is by that very process why you even exist as a human, why we have the benefit of looking out into creation to observe the many beautiful species that exist as they do.' Can you verify any of this, that god exists? That the processes are part of this plan?
Anyone willing to consider this as a legit premise feel free to engage and move forward. There's lots more to discuss, how God did all this and by what methods, why does God create anything...how does this relate to you personally, what is a soul, why do we need physical bodies, why are there many different religions, what is the purpose behind spirituality ect ect just let me know.
I'm more than willing to consider the possibility that it's a legitimate premise, I just need it to be established as a legitimate premise first, the same as any premise. In fact I am considering it right now. When the logical flaws I've presented are addressed I may even be willing to accept it as a legitimate premise.
Created:
Posted in:
Processes would include anything undergone that would bring about an end result, since we know nothing poofs into existence everything has a process to exist, literally just about everything other than maybe energy (and of course energy is utilized by God). I gave some examples earlier in the thread, the process of things forming such as stars and planets (which would include the process of the Big Bang), and those stars being used to continually seed the universe, the process of things arranging such as galaxies and solar systems, the process of things being developed such as eco-systems, habitats and the evolution of embodiments which are all the creatures you find on Earth. This is more or less a general outline.
And so the formation of planets, eco-systems and evolution are all definitely processes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I apologise for my typos in the previous post. I am typing from my phone on the bus, a bad combination I'm afraid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I feep having read your posts again that our discussion needst to move back to its beginning, namely your statement that processes develop the un8verse. I ask what processes you believe develop the unverse? I ask this for the lurpose of being clear on the specifics of what you mean by processes.
Created:
Posted in:
That's the question I'm asking you to ask yourself to come to a logical conclusion.
In the previous post you stated : "Think about what you just asked.....processes occurring by themselves, inanimate forces producing intelligent processes without any source." I never once asked that, which is what I was replying to in the above quote you asked. What I have asked is how you can show there's intelligence involved in anything not initiated by humans or animals? You haven't addressed this. Your position seems to be built on the fact that intelligence can form processes, I however ask why does the fact that intelligence can form processes demonstrate that all natural processes are formed by an intelligence (again pointing to the definition I've presented before)?
Bingo, then you understand the argument I'm making for God??
Not really, since we have an entire universe full of things that formed and interactions of forces (natural processes if you use the definition that doesn't require intelligence to be involved) that don't involve humans at all which gives us a number of examples of things that may have formed without an intelligence being involved. We've addressed the semantics issue I have with your argument (the fact that you shoehorn intelligence into the definition of process), which I'll gladly accept if you present something that can be shown to fit your definition of process (including the requirement of intelligence and intent you include in your definition) that wasn't initiated by a human then we'll have something to discuss until then your argument doesn't really present any logical reason to conclude a god.
Again I'm not saying the definition REQUIRES intelligence, I'm saying that processes don't OCCUR without intelligence, you confirmed that point over and over. You're assuming that natural forces (unintelligent) are able to generate intelligent processes, I'm trying to get you to consider that it is not a valid proposition. For there to be a process, there needs to be an intelligent source.
How have I once confirmed that processes don't occur without intelligence? You are still unable to present any process that wasn't begun by human intelligence. Your argument requires that. Unless of course you're trying to argue that intelligence itself required an intelligence source. If so, why couldn't it? You seem to have a lot of 'it's common sense' statements and semantic arguments on the term process. So lets go back to the beginning. Can you show the universe is run by an interaction of processes (using your definition which requires intelligence)? Basically I'm asking how you can relate what nature forms to what we intelligence beings create?
You're asking and answering your own question all in one paragraph lol. Come on now, let's get on the same page and consolidate this. Can we start from the platform that in order for there to be a process there needs to be an intelligent source? you agree that no process can take place without a human, why do you get all bent out of shape when I say no process in the universe can happen without a Creator? it's the SAME premise you keep making yourself!
No the point I'm making is that nothing in nature can be shown to fit your definition of a process unless you can verify the intelligence involved in them. I haven't made the point that processes require an intellect to happen. This is the point we need to establish. The point I keep making is that by your definition of process we can't show a single thing in the universe is a process unless it's formed by humanity. This doesn't suggest an intelligence in the universe beyond humanity. To move this forward, you will need to present something not formed by a human that is the product of an intelligence. Without being able to determine anything not formed by a human that involved an intelligence then by your definition your statement: "If you take into consideration that the universe is developed through processes" becomes unverifiable, since there isn't an example of a process that I'm aware of that wasn't initiated by humans. Unless your position is that we developed the universe? Your definition of process doesn't work with that statement, especially followed by "and processes are only ever associated with intelligence or mind then you're half way there already"
If the universe is developed by processes then we have examples of processes that we can't show any intelligence involved in (unless you can demonstrate intelligence in these processes?), or your follow up of: "and processes are only ever associated with intelligence or mind then you're half way there already" Doesn't follow as we have processes that develop the universe and no way to verify they involved an intelligence at all. A logical argument could possibly be. 'The universe is developed by processes and we have examples of processes being associated with intelligence'.
Another question I would ask (along with a request that you not use this question out of context). What processes would you say develop the universe? Can you name one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
That's the whole point I was making by asking you to show me where processes occur without intelligence, or a human in this case. Every time we see a process occur in the real world it's because of a human or an intelligent factor, things don't just produce themsleves. Extend that same demonstration to the universe as a whole, every time we see a "natural" process in the universe we can conclude there was first intelligence, AKA God. That's the argument I've been making.
You're missing my point. Simply put your position is a semantic one. Logically if a process requires an intellect, then if we can't show an intellect then we can't call it a process. So I ask the simple question, can you show anything in nature that fits your definition of process? Namely can you show that there is intelligence involved in anything not initiated by a human? I'll also ask how you can determine that anything not designed by humans had a 'goal'? This seems to be a central point of your argument, yet you haven't addressed how you can determine that anything not initiated by a human was initiated by an intelligence or with an intent.
Lol yet you just confirmed above that a human is needed for a desired outcome. Unless of course I misread you. I'm taking that same basic premise of logic and extending it to the processes we observe in the universe and what they produce. In this case not a human, but God.
Can you show that anything not initiated by humans can have a 'desired outcome'? If there was no intelligence in its initiation to have a desire then it can't have had a desired outcome after all. Again this argument only works if you assume nature has a desired outcome. This seems to be begging the question if used as a basis for an argument of a creators existence. Can you show any way we can verify nature has an intention?
I'm saying the answer is obvious, unintelligent forces don't create or generate processes with a desired end, or for that matter produce anything at all. That's an absurdity, it's also my opinion but it's an opinion from common sense. Label whatever you like.
Can you verify any of that? Your narrow definition aside, we see nature causing processes (as I've described it before, which doesn't require intelligence) constantly can you show any way any of them show the necessity of an intelligence? Opinions are fine, but common sense still seems to sit with the conclusion that it's an unknown and should be accepted as such until more information is available.
If a proposition is more logical than the other proposition (which is what I'm trying to get you to consider) than we have a platform to work from. Basically I'm trying to get you to consider creation as a platform by first getting you to consider the obvious. Then you may have some reason and logic to accept creation as a possibility.
Oh, I've considered it, but can you give any reason that it's more logical? So far you've done nothing to show that the proposition that the universe was created by an intelligence is more logical than the proposition that we don't have enough knowledge of the universe or its origins to make an accurate conclusion. What is your logical argument for an intelligence being necessary? So far you haven't presented any you've argued that processes require an intelligence, so I ask how can you establish anything outside of humans creations or actions are processes as you define them? You argue that it's common sense, but what is the argumentation you use to establish this? How exactly do you determine that the universe looks like a universe designed by an intelligent rather than one that formed without an intelligence? Do you have any way of know which either would look like?
We verify it by considering that processes don't generate themselves from inanimate forces. That's our starting point, I'm attempting to build strength in the case for God's existence as seen in creation. It's not proof of course, we are just exploring logic and common sense to build a case that is convincing.
Yet that only works if we discount the natural interactions of forces we see in the universe without any evidence of an intelligence. This is an equivocation fallacy. You assert that natural processes must have an intelligence because processes require an intelligence, yet that only works if we accept your definition. Logically however, until we can verify the existence of such an intelligence involved in natural processes we should either conclude that your definition isn't accurate or that we'll no longer call natural processes processes.
Can you show anything not created by humans would have required an intellect to generate? Otherwise why is your position valid? Basically we're still circling the first point. Why don't those things generated without human intervention count a processes that began without intelligence?
Again that was the whole point, don't see how you're missing it. I'm asking you to extend that same premise to the point I've been making. What do you call a process that wasn't developed by an intelligence source? my answer is that it doesn't happen, therefore the God hypothesis is a valid one. That's the foundation to this case we are building.I'm going to split this posts so it doesn't get too messy, hopefully after we get on the same page we can consolidate all of this.
I'm not missing your point, I simply question it. I'm asking you to cite a process that wasn't developed by a human so that we've got a basis of discussion. Since I get the impression that you'll dismiss anything I point forward as you did gravity. So present such a process and show me how it demonstrates an intelligence. At present I'm not able to think of anything in nature that fits your definition of a process. So for the purpose of this discussion and moving things forward, I ask what processes exist that aren't begun by humans?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
First of all let's back up a minute and be more precise about what I mean by processes. I wouldn't categorize gravitation as a process by itself, that would be more of an effect. However a desired effect or outcome due to an intelligent process. What I mean by processes are developments, arrangements, formations, evolution, the products of energy ect ect. So we have to look specifically at what causes gravity to see the intelligence or source behind it. And what I mean by development and arrangements are like stars, planets, galaxies, solar systems, planetary orbit, habitations, embodiments ect ect..
Can you demonstrate that anything in the real world is both 'a desired effect or outcome due to an intelligent process' that wasn't initiated by a human? Can you show any such processes exist? To say 'we call them processes so they must have an intelligent origin because all processes have intelligent origins' seems a semantic argument, it also seems to be close to begging the question.
Gravitational force or rotational gravity for example is produced by the centrifugal force in a rotating frame of reference and mass of that object. Why does that occur at all? why do you see the birth and death of a star, the formation of a planet, arrangement of galaxies and solar systems with light and heat sources, the development of habitations for life and embodiments? why does energy operate as an intelligent force? these are all desired outcomes manufactured through intelligent processes. My argument resides on the fact that processes are associated with minds or intelligence, in other words what you observe taking place in the universe is a direct result of intelligence and that would be an obvious deduction.
If there is no verifiable answer then you've got an argument from ignorance. As for energy acting as an 'intelligent force' can you explain how you know what differences would occur between energy acting as an 'intelligent force' and energy acting as an unintelligent force and how you confirm this? My position is perfectly valid if none of these things can be verified, it stands logically that without being able to verify the existence or non-existence of an intelligence in the origins of the universe such an intelligent involvement is an unknown. Where is the reasoning that makes the existence of such an intelligence more logical?
Your argument is begging the question. You state: 'If you take into consideration that the universe is developed through processes and processes are only ever associated with intelligence or mind then you're half way there already.'
This is assuming the conclusion in the premise due to your definition of 'process' shoehorning in the necessity of intelligence. How do you verify the intelligence involved in the origins of the universe? It's a semantic twist to include your conclusion in your premise.
How would you determine an intelligent force from an unintelligent force? How did you determine that what you call the processes the developed the universe fit your definition of process (namely have an association with an intelligence)?
I'm curious what would you call a process that wasn't developed by a human?
Because you're accepting that processes occur without an intelligent source, the fact you don't even see that is confusing. Think about what you just asked.....processes occurring by themselves, inanimate forces producing intelligent processes without any source. You seem content to accept that intelligent processes generate themselves.
Straw man both is assuming what I accept and in the highlighted section. I have never assumed or asked how inanimate forces produced intelligent processes without any source, that isn't my question at all. I ask how you can show that there is intelligence in anything not initiated by humans or animals, it would be irrational if I were to be using your definition of process which requires it involve an intelligence, I have already very clearly specified that's not the definition I was using, I don't posit intelligence at any point in the natural forces interactions.
That's usually how logic is used, correlation and deduction.
That's a false dichotomy, logic doesn't restrict me to assuming that the universe was made by an intelligence or assuming that it wasn't. I can simply conclude that there's no way for me to know.
Huh? we do have a way do determine what I'm saying, that's called logic, common sense and correlation.
So far I haven't seen any logically sound argument presented that suggests we can know that an intelligence created the universe. You have proposed that since it began by processes and that all processes are associated with minds or intelligence it stands to reason the universe must have been formed by an intelligence. Yet unless you can show these 'processes' and that they fit your definition of processes (namely that they are associated with a mind or intelligence), then either we can expand your definition, use a term other than process for them or show that they are in fact associated with a mind/intelligence then your argument is empty, it at best says nothing at worst begs the question.
Yes, which is why I asked you to show me where you observe in the real world where processes occur by themselves. Evidence is defined as that which indicates a proposition true, processes are associated with intelligence and that's a pretty good indicator. Having said that, we're only moving forward from a logical conclusion, that's not the only supporting factor that God exists.
This again hits on that equivocation fallacy you like so much. Again let us be clear that the definition I use for processes does not necessarily require them to be the product of intelligence (it was actually one of the definitions for process that you presented). With that in mind I would ask when you have ever been able to verify anything not initiated by a human (and to be fair lets include animals) that we can verify was initiated by an intelligence. Again, what would you call a process that wasn't initiated by a human or animal? How do you determine that it was the product of an intelligence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
My question is that can you show intention in gravity or heat transference? The reason I specifically addressed the definition for process 'a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner'
Why is it absurd or illogical? Why must one make either assumption? It seems to me that if we have no way to determine if many of the processes we observe have or require a process then the logical conclusion barring further evidence is that it's unknown if they do or must. Do you have evidence that they require an intelligence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The real world, our day to day observations. Perhaps you can share with me processes that occur all by themselves? as far as I can tell processes are associated with minds (intelligence) involved.
I would say that if we include specific definition
'a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner'
Then we could point to gravitation. Heat transference... Probably a very long list of others. Now, I don't assert that if no intelligence can be observed in those processes then no intelligence is present, however if no intelligence can be shown then how do you support the statement that 'all processes must be associated with an intelligence or mind'?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
If you take into consideration that the universe is developed through processes and processes are only ever associated with intelligence or mind then you're half way there already.
On what grounds do you conclude that processes are only ever associated with intelligence or mind?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
What is that question?You state: "My starting point doesn't presuppose," it does, because it uses an atheistic worldview to look for answers and dismisses the Christian theistic worldview.
My starting point is the very simple question 'How did the universe come to be'. No presupposition there.
You have demonstrated in a post (and I drew your attention to this) that you take the side of interpretative data that supports the atheistic/secular worldview and you are biased towards the Christian worldview. You deny the Christian God exists on the belief that there is no evidence for His existence. Wasn't it you who called Christians ignorant and insane?
I take the side of reason and what I can observe. I see no reason to assume more than my senses are reasonably accurate and that I can use them to make reasonable deductions of the universe around me. No, I have never called christians either ignorant nor insane. I don't believe either to true, if I did I'd have no reason to converse with them. That said, I haven't been presented with evidence of the validity of their claims.
I'm waiting for you to tackle Posts 182 and 191 with interest.
I believe I began in a previous post with a couple of questions on the source of these prophecies. How exactly do you verify that the Gospels in question were written prior to ad70? Also your first bit about the olivet discourse being specific to a specific time is demonstrably speculation, since no date or time is given in the texts. What of:
Mark 13
14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’[a] standing where it[b] does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.
20 “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.21 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
24 “But in those days, following that distress,
20 “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.21 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
24 “But in those days, following that distress,
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[c]
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[c]
Notice how it states 'in those days, following that distress' then proceeds to talk of the stars falling from the sky. Also: 'at that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds.' These are still the same period, so do we have any records of these things occuring? What you have so far is that Jesus stated a temple would be destroyed and it was... I hardly find that to be any sign of divine insight, he even stated he didn't know when it would happen.
Note, all this is simply initial opinions on prophecy from someone who claims neither to be well versed in prophecy or the history of the period.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You said that good can mean anything (and I agree if there is no ultimate standard then any standard goes). You said I could not demonstrate there is such a thing as objective good. I agree if there is no objective source. However, the Bible claims there is such a source and gives good reason to believe it is that source.
No, I said everyone forms their own opinion of good. That's not the same as saying either good can mean anything (though that's technically just in definition, any word can mean anything depending on how we define it, but I also didn't mean that anything can be good). No, I never said you couldn't, I asked if you could and have stated that you haven't.
I chose the abortion debate as one issue in which we can question what the "good" is. Whose view is more reasonable and logical? It all hinges on what the unborn is (i.e., a human being) and on what value there is to be human. If you say none, then why can't we kill other classes of human beings when we feel they don't measure up to our standards? If we can kill one class of human beings, the unborn, then why can't we kill other classes? Surely, in the US if you are going to discriminate against the unborn why can't you discriminate against a person of a certain color, or size, or where they live? Those who control the power and wealth could just go into urban slums and wipe out those who are undesirable. Then you could turn the tables on those who hold a different political view from you (if you hold the power). You could shut down their free speech and kill them for expressing their views. Then you could take aim on those who are weak and sick like Hitler did. Get rid of them too. Then you could discriminate against those who don't meet a certain height restriction. Then you could pick on religious people. Get rid of them by whatever means necessary.
Not really no, you wouldn't come to a moral conclusion by concluding what is more logical. Morality has never been synonymous with logic to my thinking. The rest of your position is an argument to consequence/appeal to emotion and meaningless to prove anything exists.
So, you must answer why it is okay to kill one whole class of human beings because of the choice of another class (i.e., unborn and women), yet you punish and set rules with other classes when they kill whole classes. That same woman can kill her unborn human offspring but not her two-year-old? The class of born as opposed to unborn gives different laws on killing. Why can't you kill the newborn but you can the unborn? They are both dependent on her. They are both smaller than she is. The difference is their environments. Is it okay to kill someone because they are in a different environment than you are?
This also does nothing to prove an objective morality exists.
If you have no objective standard then you are at the mercy of those in control and it is okay for them to do what they prefer because they are in control. Is that reasonable and logical to believe? If so, "You're next; please step this way!"
No. I can very much say I'm against it. I can very much say that I will fight to change it, I will just do so with the intellectual honesty of admitting that my reasons for that are a collection of personally formed opinions, preferences and views. The same as someone who does this with a supposed (and as of yet unshown) moral authority.
So, is might makes the right GOOD? How can you know? Only if a necessary objective standard exists. Without it I would be in the same position as you, not knowing any moral truth, and that is where you are.
You are in the same position as me. The difference is you have pointed at something and said 'that's my objective morality'. You certainly haven't demonstrated such an objective morality yet.
Created:
Some truths are logically self-evident. Would you know what straight was without knowing what crooked is? How would you measure good if all you knew was evil?
Can you show that anyone knows what good is? Or what evil is? Can you demonstrate why their definition is better than anyone else's? Let's talk about objective morality and abortion. My position is that neither position is correct to state their position as morally correct. Neither have to my knowledge demonstrated any way they can know their moral position is objectively accurate, or that there is any objective morality for it to be accurate against.
The law of identity states that a thing is what it is. (A=A)
So? In this case we have morality:
a doctrine or system of moral conduct
So, why do these systems have to be anything more than a collection of subjective values and preferences? Morality isn't in conflict if the systems someone holds are different since by definition the system isn't specific.
If you assert A in this case to be morality then there's no issue, however if your A is something else then what exactly are you talking about as A?
With goodness, how would you know what that was unless you have a standard to compare goodness to that was ideal? And you can't arbitrarily call something good without it actually being good. Why should I believe your opinion? Hitler thought it was good to eliminate 6 million Jews and 11-12 million undesirables. Is it good because he called it good? NO. Good has to have an identity that does not change on a particular issue and morph into its opposite. Abortion was an example I gave you. Before Roe V. Wade abortion was considered wrong and a crime unless the mother and unborn were both threatened and would lose their life. After Roe v. Wade abortion was legalized to a specific period in the development of the unborn.
Who said we do know what goodness is? We have opinions, but can you prove in any way that we know what is good and what is bad? Can you demonstrate that anyone's idea of good is more accurate to reality to anyone else's? You're still unable to address your claim that a moral absolute must exist, you certainly haven't done anything more than state your preference that there be a moral absolute because you dislike the implications otherwise. This doesn't suggest your position is accurate. Care to address how we can know morality exists as anything more than
So who was right with abortion? They both can't be logically right since they state opposites. Right, or good loses its identity when it can mean the opposite depending on who holds the view. It is stupidity to say that both views are right/good.
We're not even really arguing this point. All I can really say is so what? I don't know as I'd go so far as to say it's stupidity, but I see no reason to see it as anything more than an expression of opinion and preference. Can show any statement on morality is more than that?
Created:
Missed this, sorry.Yes, I can show it as reasonable and logical because only one system is necessary for morality and no other meets that criterion. If you want to know what is good you need God - the unchanging, benevolent final standard of appeal.
No, you can't show it as logical or reasonable. You simply assume that we must a means of judging 'best' or 'morality' You have shown no way in which this is actually in accordance to reality. Can you show that we do in fact have a means of judging best or morality (neither actually state they are objective values, even if they did then you would still need to show that something exists that fits the definition). Your argument seems to be close to assuming an objective moral standard in its premise (that would be begging the question).
Created:
Makes sense of it? Why is your view any better than any other view? You have already admitted it is not. Thus, you are inconsistent which means you have major problems. Why is your good better than my good? Not only this but as I have pointed out a number of times, everything has an identity and that identity cannot be what it is not.
My
Norm Geisler, Any Absolutes, Absolutely, had this to say:
"Finally, if morals are relative to each social group, then even opposite ethical imperatives can be viewed as right. But contradictory imperatives cannot both be true. Everything cannot be right, certainly not opposites."
That's absurd. If morality is purely subjective then no group is 'right' every group is simply stating an opinion. There is no contradiction if there is no objective morality by which to be right. You seem to think that my position is that no bodies morality is wrong. It's not, it's that I have know way of knowing if anyone's morality is right. If I were to assume no god exists and no objective morality then I could make sense of morality by acknowledging morality is a purely subjective set of values, same with best. This would make sense of them. They would be reasonable and easy to understand. Morality would be a set of values a person adopts. Best would be a preference (can you show it's anything more than that). You keep attacking the straw man that I assume all morals are 'right' my position is actually that I can't call any moral values correct because no one has demonstrated we can know of anything to measure those values against.
That brings another cog into the wheel, moral absolutes.
Only if you assume that there must be a 'right'. You're assuming that there's a right answer why? What reason is there to assume that any of our opinions on morality are right? We're still not even passed the simple question of how you can know there is an objective morality, let alone on to how we can know that anyone has come to the correct conclusions.
Funny thing is that you can't deny an absolute without implying one in the process of the denial and I noticed you have been fairly conscientious not to do so. God is that absolute.
I don't deny the absolutes so much as question them. If I have no evidence of these absolutes (which I don't), then why would I believe in them? I notice you haven't demonstrated any way in which we can show a moral absolute exists, until you can why should I accept it's true? You argue 'you need it to make sense of morality' not true, I could make sense of morality perfectly well by viewing it as non-existent, it's something we made up. If so then there is no 'best moral' simply whatever morals people choose, they aren't right or wrong, they're simply preference and opinion. Can you show any reason this can't be the case? Can you show any way in which this would be different from the world we observe?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I've never said best is subjective in regards to moral good and evil. It is only subjective in terms of personal preference (what is as opposed to what should be). As soon as a moral ought is brought into the equation there has to be a best to make sense of it. There has to be something (or Someone) that does not change in which we can measure everything else in relation to it (Him). If there is nothing that does not change then you can't measure it. God is that something (Someone).It is not nonsensical to ask why a subjective opinion is good or better and in relation to what.
It is nonsensical when the person you are conversing with has said that it would appear that A) there is no 'better' in an objective sense or B) We've no way of demonstrating that we can determine objective 'better'. This is the problem is you haven't shown that we can measure objective best, you have simply stated that without god we can't. Can you demonstrate that we can know best? Can you show how we can know this. You can say 'god is best so we measure against him' great, now show god exists. At this point you're not longer able to logically use objective good/best/morality as evidence of god as you need to show god exists before you can show any of those things objectively exist. That would be a circular argument.
Created: