Atheist question

[DBowling]

So, clearly, you are only entertaining the idea that non-intelligent things could produce the events and wonders of the Big Bang, mostly because the only other alternative for you is there had to be a Creator.

So clearly you believe an intelligent being could live eternally mostly because the only alternative is to not presuppose the existence of your Creator God.

The significance of the Big Bang theory is that it answers the question about when certain aspects of our universe "came into existence".
Once it is established that these aspects of our universe came into existence, we can identify high level characteristics of the causal agent based on what was caused to come into existence.

For example, as we have already discussed, eternality is a fundamental characteristic of anything that is able to bring the fabric of space and time into existence.

The Big Bang Theory also indicates that the laws of physics as we understand them came to work sometime after the fabric of space and time came into existence.
Since we know from experience that it takes intelligence to create computer and mathematical models for the laws of physics, then we can infer that whatever caused the laws of physics as we understand them to work the way they do in our universe is at least more intelligent than those who create mathematical and computer models to represent how the laws of physics work.

So by examining what happened during the Big Bang we can infer the existence of...
- a causal agent that is eternal
- a causal agent that is intelligent

[RickD]

So, clearly, you are only entertaining the idea that non-intelligent things could produce the events and wonders of the Big Bang, mostly because the only other alternative for you is there had to be a Creator.

So clearly you believe an intelligent being could live eternally mostly because the only alternative is to not presuppose the existence of your Creator God.

But it is unreal that you consider that non-intelligent things is just as likely to have produced the stunning array of complex things and functionalities of Big Bang as did a Creative Intelligence. It simply boggles my mind that anyone would think either option to be just as likely.

It is unreal that you consider that intelligent things are just as likely to live eternally as non intelligent things. It boggles my mind how difficult it is for some people to admit to not having an answer.

And when Kenny is at a loss for any real defense of his worldview, he resorts to the "I know you are, but what am I" argument.

[Kenny]

Since we know from experience that it takes intelligence to create computer and mathematical models for the laws of physics, then we can infer that whatever caused the laws of physics as we understand them to work the way they do in our universe is at least more intelligent than those who create mathematical and computer models to represent how the laws of physics work.

Just because humans create computers and mathematical models to understand the details of "X", doesn't mean the origin of "X" is more intelligent than the humans who created computer and mathematical models to understand it's details.

[RickD]

Since we know from experience that it takes intelligence to create computer and mathematical models for the laws of physics, then we can infer that whatever caused the laws of physics as we understand them to work the way they do in our universe is at least more intelligent than those who create mathematical and computer models to represent how the laws of physics work.

Just because humans create computers and mathematical models to understand the details of "X", doesn't mean the origin of "X" is more intelligent than the humans who created computer and mathematical models to understand it's details.

When Kenny is at a loss for any real defense of his worldview, he resorts to grasping at straws.

Isn't it amazing, the lengths that people go to, just to deny God?

Throw out all rational thought and logic, as long as he doesn't have to believe in God.

[DBowling]

Since we know from experience that it takes intelligence to create computer and mathematical models for the laws of physics, then we can infer that whatever caused the laws of physics as we understand them to work the way they do in our universe is at least more intelligent than those who create mathematical and computer models to represent how the laws of physics work.

Just because humans create computers and mathematical models to understand the details of "X", doesn't mean the origin of "X" is more intelligent than the humans who created computer and mathematical models to understand it's details.

I would be interested in the empirical evidence to support that claim.

[PaulSacramento]

Since we know from experience that it takes intelligence to create computer and mathematical models for the laws of physics, then we can infer that whatever caused the laws of physics as we understand them to work the way they do in our universe is at least more intelligent than those who create mathematical and computer models to represent how the laws of physics work.

Just because humans create computers and mathematical models to understand the details of "X", doesn't mean the origin of "X" is more intelligent than the humans who created computer and mathematical models to understand it's details.

Correct.
Just because WE need intelligence to understand something, doesn't make that thing or it's origin more intelligent than us.
BUT, when we find INFORMATION in that thing or INFORMATION as the cause of that thing, then the question MUST be asked as to HOW INFORMATION can come from nothing ( it can't by the way because there is no evidence of that) and how INFORMATION can exist without intelligence.

[Philip]

Philip wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:46 pm
But it is unreal that you consider that non-intelligent things is just as likely to have produced the stunning array of complex things and functionalities of Big Bang as did a Creative Intelligence. It simply boggles my mind that anyone would think either option to be just as likely.

Ken: It is unreal that you consider that intelligent things are just as likely to live eternally as non intelligent things. It boggles my mind how difficult it is for some people to admit to not having an answer.

Ken, you are so dishonest with yourself. You've already agreed that, "as far as we know, non-intelligent things aren’t capable of creating something so complicated." So, you certainly realize this to be true. But then you sidestep the real implications of this by bringing up a secondary issue based upon ZERO evidence. THE reason you realize there is no reason whatsoever to believe non-intelligent things can create things of mind-blowing designs and functionalities, is that for thousands of years man has been examining the many extraordinary evidences of complexity found throughout the world and universe, and yet we've never found any evidence of a non-intelligent thing originating anything of immense complexity. And that truth has ZERO to do with your ridiculous response: "It is unreal that you consider that intelligent things are just as likely to live eternally as non intelligent things. It boggles my mind how difficult it is for some people to admit to not having an answer."

As we DO have evidence of thousands of years of study that totally reveal what non-intelligent things cannot do. And with a universe and world to study, of so many complex things across so many scientific disciplines, well, that's a lot of evidence that shows this to be a definitive truth about the limits of non-intelligent things. But then you sidestep the obvious implication of your own observation that, "non-intelligent things aren’t capable of creating something so complicated," by changing the topic over to what type of things are more likely to exist, intelligent vs. non-intelligent. If you would only face the obvious of what we DO know vs. the fantasized possibilities that anyone can make up out of thin air - and that we have ZERO evidence of - then, just maybe, you could accept an intelligent designer and creator must have preceded and caused the universe.

[Kenny]

Since we know from experience that it takes intelligence to create computer and mathematical models for the laws of physics, then we can infer that whatever caused the laws of physics as we understand them to work the way they do in our universe is at least more intelligent than those who create mathematical and computer models to represent how the laws of physics work.

Just because humans create computers and mathematical models to understand the details of "X", doesn't mean the origin of "X" is more intelligent than the humans who created computer and mathematical models to understand it's details.

I would be interested in the empirical evidence to support that claim.

Humans build tools and machines to study the details of a coral reef. Does this mean the movement of the ocean and everything involved in the creation of the corral reef is more intelligent than the humans who build machines and tools to study it? Humm.... let me guess; God made the ocean, the life within the ocean and everything else that contributes to the creation of the coral reef, thus God made the coral reef and he is more intelligent than the humans studying it. Does that sound about right?

[DBowling]

Since we know from experience that it takes intelligence to create computer and mathematical models for the laws of physics, then we can infer that whatever caused the laws of physics as we understand them to work the way they do in our universe is at least more intelligent than those who create mathematical and computer models to represent how the laws of physics work.

Just because humans create computers and mathematical models to understand the details of "X", doesn't mean the origin of "X" is more intelligent than the humans who created computer and mathematical models to understand it's details.

I would be interested in the empirical evidence to support that claim.

Humans build tools and machines to study the details of a coral reef. Does this mean the movement of the ocean and everything involved in the creation of the corral reef is more intelligent than the humans who build machines and tools to study it? Humm.... let me guess; God made the ocean, the life within the ocean and everything else that contributes to the creation of the coral reef, thus God made the coral reef and he is more intelligent than the humans studying it. Does that sound about right?

I wouldn't disagree with your analysis (you may actually be catching on), but that's probably not where I would personally choose to start.
I think Paul's focus is more precise than my statement.

BUT, when we find INFORMATION in that thing or INFORMATION as the cause of that thing, then the question MUST be asked as to HOW INFORMATION can come from nothing ( it can't by the way because there is no evidence of that) and how INFORMATION can exist without intelligence.

Since the laws of physics imply the existence of complex and structured information (thus the relevance of my mathematical or computer model criteria), then whatever caused the the laws of physics as we understand them to work the way they do would require intelligence... and yes more intelligence than those who create mathematical and computer models to reflect the behavior of the laws of physics as we understand them.

I think the key here is Paul's observation
INFORMATION cannot exist without intelligence

[Kenny]

Since we know from experience that it takes intelligence to create computer and mathematical models for the laws of physics, then we can infer that whatever caused the laws of physics as we understand them to work the way they do in our universe is at least more intelligent than those who create mathematical and computer models to represent how the laws of physics work.

Just because humans create computers and mathematical models to understand the details of "X", doesn't mean the origin of "X" is more intelligent than the humans who created computer and mathematical models to understand it's details.

Correct.
Just because WE need intelligence to understand something, doesn't make that thing or it's origin more intelligent than us.
BUT, when we find INFORMATION in that thing or INFORMATION as the cause of that thing, then the question MUST be asked as to HOW INFORMATION can come from nothing ( it can't by the way because there is no evidence of that) and how INFORMATION can exist without intelligence.

I've got a feeling I am not understanding the point you are making here; but here goes. Information is in everything. Information does not cause anything. Intelligent beings discover and use information for their own purposes. But whether the someone is there to use the information or not, the information is still there to be discovered.

[RickD]

Since we know from experience that it takes intelligence to create computer and mathematical models for the laws of physics, then we can infer that whatever caused the laws of physics as we understand them to work the way they do in our universe is at least more intelligent than those who create mathematical and computer models to represent how the laws of physics work.

Just because humans create computers and mathematical models to understand the details of "X", doesn't mean the origin of "X" is more intelligent than the humans who created computer and mathematical models to understand it's details.

Correct.
Just because WE need intelligence to understand something, doesn't make that thing or it's origin more intelligent than us.
BUT, when we find INFORMATION in that thing or INFORMATION as the cause of that thing, then the question MUST be asked as to HOW INFORMATION can come from nothing ( it can't by the way because there is no evidence of that) and how INFORMATION can exist without intelligence.

I've got a feeling I am not understanding the point you are making here; but here goes. Information is in everything. Information does not cause anything. Intelligent beings discover and use information for their own purposes. But whether the someone is there to use the information or not, the information is still there to be discovered.

Information can't exist, without intelligence causing its existence.

[Philip]

Ken: Information is in everything. Information does not cause anything.

That is staggeringly naive! EVERY biological entity on this planet is whatever it is - a man, fruitfly, porcupine or a banana, etc. - because of its unique, massively long string of its uniquely arranged DNA coding, and how it's configured.

READ! https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpa ... l-6493050/

[Kenny]

Philip wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:46 pm
But it is unreal that you consider that non-intelligent things is just as likely to have produced the stunning array of complex things and functionalities of Big Bang as did a Creative Intelligence. It simply boggles my mind that anyone would think either option to be just as likely.

Ken: It is unreal that you consider that intelligent things are just as likely to live eternally as non intelligent things. It boggles my mind how difficult it is for some people to admit to not having an answer.

Ken, you are so dishonest with yourself. You've already agreed that, "as far as we know, non-intelligent things aren’t capable of creating something so complicated."

Yes; as far as we know. So how is that dishonest?

So, you certainly realize this to be true.

No, that doesn’t make it true. It would be dishonest to claim just because we haven’t seen it, therefore it is impossible. However; if that is the game you want to play, how about if you be honest and apply the same standards to your argument that you apply to what you are arguing against? If you are gonna play the game; “because we haven’t seen it, therefore it is impossible” when it comes to non-intelligent things, apply that same standard to intelligent things and admit intelligent beings cannot live eternally since we haven’t seen that either!
If you are gonna make an exception for your claim because your claim is God; someone nobody knows the entirety of, then you have to make an exception for matter; something nobody knows the entirety of, as well.

[Kenny]

Since we know from experience that it takes intelligence to create computer and mathematical models for the laws of physics, then we can infer that whatever caused the laws of physics as we understand them to work the way they do in our universe is at least more intelligent than those who create mathematical and computer models to represent how the laws of physics work.

Just because humans create computers and mathematical models to understand the details of "X", doesn't mean the origin of "X" is more intelligent than the humans who created computer and mathematical models to understand it's details.

Correct.
Just because WE need intelligence to understand something, doesn't make that thing or it's origin more intelligent than us.
BUT, when we find INFORMATION in that thing or INFORMATION as the cause of that thing, then the question MUST be asked as to HOW INFORMATION can come from nothing ( it can't by the way because there is no evidence of that) and how INFORMATION can exist without intelligence.

I've got a feeling I am not understanding the point you are making here; but here goes. Information is in everything. Information does not cause anything. Intelligent beings discover and use information for their own purposes. But whether the someone is there to use the information or not, the information is still there to be discovered.

Information can't exist, without intelligence causing its existence.

Data exists regardless of intelligence, and intelligent beings turn that data into information.

[DBowling]

Information can't exist, without intelligence causing its existence.

Data exists regardless of intelligence, and intelligent beings turn that data into information.

Can ordered, complex, structured data exist without intelligence?
Can a novel exist without intelligence?
Can a computer program exist without intelligence?
Can a mathematical algorithm exist without intelligence?
Can a scientific theory exist without intelligence?