Why is Nothing unstable? Nothing is nothing, it doesn't have a duality of being stable or unstable... Unless you are not talking about Nothing but some kind of temporary "lack of matter as we know it" or whatever.

Citta, my brother... I gotta love your persistence and confidence in the face of what you admit is no argument whatsoever. You admit you can not prove Atheism, and then proceed to try and make a "most likely" case based on little or no evidence whatsoever.

Let's look at what you are asserting, because contrary to your frequent claims, you are making claims that are rather extraordinary. I don't subscribe to the "burden of proof" idea that you and the materialist crew are so fond of, but according to it... you have some proving to do.

What you yourself have actually said more than once on this thread is that you are trying to convince us of the false nature of these two things. If you are trying to convince us without proof, you should not be surprised if you fail in this.

Your definition of intelligence as linked:

Quite the assumption considering I have stated repeatedly that this is not what I am working with. I know you can read at a high level of comprehension, so I must guess that your failing to see this is willful. Of course the whole crux of your argument in this post rests on this willful refusal to accept that the word Intelligence has between 5 & 15 definitions depending on the dictionary you use. None of them, however restrict themselves to the definition you cling to. Not even your Oxford version. A bit of research shows that in American English, the standard and most used dictionary would be Merriam Webster. Here are the 5 definitions found there: Intelligence. I like to use OneLook because they reference 45 separate dictionaries. http://onelook.com/?w=intelligence&ls=a The definition I linked to before was the preferred source for etymology roots, and we were discussing the Latin root of the word, so it is useful because we are discussing a variety of types of intelligence. Please note definition 2b of Merriam Webster includes and specifically references "cosmic intelligence" which, along with Natural Intelligence, is the main topic of this conversation and the debate.

It does not.

I assume that AI has an "understander" then? In actuality, nearly every one of the dictionaries cited above claim information alone to be a definition of intelligence. This irks you, but we didn't invent the language. Information is even more all-inclusive than the "pick out" to discern definition.

Nice try. Simply not true, though. All that is being said is that such systems are intelligently ordered.

Pure conjecture and opinion. Dumb does not appear in the definition of any of these systems. And, again with the require argument? Tut, tut.

Advantageous to your argument perhaps... Artificial Intelligence follows very specific and well defined sets of rules, and it is clearly called intelligence. Having programmed neural networks myself for coming on 20 years, I can tell you that things much simpler than any natural system we know of are regularly and "normally" referred to as intelligent.

Nice try. It is a logical fallacy to try and limit the definition of a word or concept to one that supports your position. I never tried to limit the definition, but merely used a few definitions that are in common usage and present in basically all of the dictionaries available on the internet. Correct is a judgment that makes no sense. Funny enough, what you are doing... is the very definition of Equivocation. Follow your own link and read it for yourself. You are taking a polysemic word "intelligence," and insisting that only the definition that you resonate with can be used in a discussion that is addressing all of the definitions. Your "understander" definition is, as I said earlier, totally anthropocentric. And, even with this definition, there is no proof against a universal mind that understands itself.

Gutsy moving calling the "Affirming the Consequent" fallacy when most of your argument against theism rests on these kind of converse error reasonings. I appreciate the balls here, but I can't let you get away with that kind of clumsy debate technique. My argument vis a vis Self-Organization was merely to show that it is part of the definition of a number of types of intelligence. A very salient form of intelligence to this debate is Collective Intelligence, and I showed clearly that Self-Organization is a feature by which such intelligence can be known. No "If P then Q. Q. Then, P." involved here.

Whereas, your conjecture that "If the Universe were intelligently designed, it would display certain features. It seems not to display those features. Therefore it is not intelligently designed." Is the exact fallacy in inverse. It is often called Denying The Antecedent in logic.

The whole reason I tried to steer you away from the typical materialist arguments based on "necessity," is that such arguments are very often invalid fallacies of the kind you have presented. See Necessity & Sufficiency. Notice that both kinds of errors we address above are specifically referenced.

Not unproblematic for you. Fact is that it is not a small promille of a promille of scientists who promote pantheistic worldviews within the scientific paradigm. You might not like it, but it is incontestable that there are a large number of scientists who ascribe to things like the Gaia Theory. Notice that there are many dozen papers written by scientists referenced in this short document. If I had to guess, I would say that there are more books on Natural Intelligence & Gaia type theories written by scientists on Amazon at the moment than there are books about most aspects of physics that you seem to accept... with the possible exception of string theory. (A theory which suggests cosmic intelligence of proportions that go well beyond your typical theism... dimensions that include all possible timelines of all possible universes in a single point?)

Honestly, the way many scientists use the word Universe, suggests that they are, in fact, pantheists. Given that we are on a thread discussing Pantheism it would help if you recognized the definition of this word.

Note that it is the belief that "Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god." Thus the argument over the creator stuff is in addition to, but not the crux of this debate. Most of us spiritual types are not actually pantheists, because we believe in a transcendent intelligence, and often look at the material universe as an illusion or dream of transcendent non-material mind or spirit. But, in the realm of science... many people are actually pantheists. Many of my atheist friends who were unfamiliar with the diversity of theistic and deistic positions in philosophy realized that they were pantheists or pandeists after we discussed the matter.

I will say this one last time... Atheism is a belief system. One that has no proof. It is no more provable than any other form of Theism. To claim it as fact is to make an extraordinary claim which you can not actually back up with anything other than logical fallacies and assumptions.

Not in the least. Gravity is a much more solid "theory." We can see it in action all the time, and it is considered a primal force... thus fairly close to a law of nature. Dark Matter, is merely an attempt to reconcile equations that otherwise would fall apart. Because said equations are useful, and we are adverse to abandoning them, we have invented Dark Matter as a kind of placeholder or constant to account for the fact that our observations are 95% off from what our equations would otherwise suggest.

As I said previously, I actually like the theory of Dark Matter, and as you said, it holds little bearing on this debate... so I will let this one go.

This doesn't follow at all. The idea that you are in a position to judge the mind of a being capable of creating Universes is somewhat laughable. This is even more absurd than the idea of a bluebird judging humanity according to its limited concepts of intelligence and creation. It might imagine that a weathervane is an example of poor design because it is not suited for a bluebird to nest on. Such a bird might not quite grasp that beings orders of magnitude more advanced than itself live inside the huge object that the weathervane sits on... and that the weathervane is simply a device for monitoring. What would a blue jay think of a Church Clock? Or Manhattan?

It is rather arrogant for a human to presume to understand why a universal creative force would create something that evolves and develops. Perhaps there were universes that were created in perfection, and this one is merely an experiment in dynamic complexity? Quoting from Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens doesn't actually strengthen your arguments BTW. We have all heard what those guys have to say, and they have not convinced the vast majority of humanity to reject religion with their reductionist arguments thus far.

I want you to drop them because they are doing you a disservice. They are the laughing stock of philosophy, and the fact that so many science types use them only highlights that they are debating a subject out of their depth. This kind of logic might fly with other physicists, but it is bound to be called out by anyone who has studied logic.

As for Occam's Razor... it is embarrassing that arguments get down to this old rag of a concept as the basis for their truth. Occam's Razor is a methodology of going with the simplest argument, but not a proof of anything.

Grasping at straws are we?

And you continue to speak in possessive pronouns about data sets that I am pretty sure you did not personally collect... and you have not presented here. If, as you constantly remind us, personal subjective anecdotes are not reliable arguments (which I don't agree with)... then you must realize that your reading of books and journals is also merely a personal subjective anecdote based on your sensory perception... which you are always telling us is so very fallible.

Wow. This is the kind of statement that gets people in trouble around here when spoken from the other side of the divide. I refrain from making such pronouncements, but I appreciate the display of false confidence.

It seems that you realized that your previous quote was ridiculous, as you soften it a bit here.

And, once again, you have shown no such thing. All you have done is present some information that proves nothing. You already admitted this.

As for Occam and his shaving implements... we like to call this idea "lex parsimoniae" (Latin for the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness). This is never a proof of anything. It merely recommends that among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible. It is a reasonable method of selecting a direction to pursue for exploration... but a non-starter as a proof. Besides, most of the time that people call this out in a debate, their position is nowhere near the simplest explanation, nor is it the hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions.

In this argument, the oldest hypothesis about the Universe is that it was created by G*d. This is as simple as it gets. Whether it is true or not, it is the most succinct hypothesis. The current models being put forth by various scientists are the new ideas and make new assumptions. Remember, the idea that the Universe is material is an assumption. The idea that there was a "big bang" is an assumption. Ideas of complexity and entropy are also assumptions. Personally, the idea that a divine being dreamed up this existence is rather simple and parsimonious.

Again with the judgmental pronouncements? Woo woo could be considered derogatory... but I don't care about that. I have rather thick skin.

As for why probability waveforms collapsing implies consciousness... and we've been down this road before... there is no such thing as observation without some level of consciousness. You could use the same logic you use to deny the definitions of intelligence to deny the definitions of consciousness, but you would be making the same error related to another polysemic word. The quantum theory in question itself stipulates that such collapse only happens when observed. We could go round in circles, but this is rudimentary.

On your part. It is another example of you refusing to accept a well established definition of a word with multiple definitions. As I said earlier, any distinct entity that can take a blueprint and build complex structures out of raw materials is displaying at least one type of intelligence. And, even if cells weren't distinct or were purely mechanistic, this would not change.

It does, and according to the definitions that exist for the word... nearly everything in the Universe displays intelligence. That is kind of the point.

My quote, even out of context is absolutely true. This is no attack. I love science, and because I understand how it works in real life (not the abstract ideal you like to tout), I know that it can be rather dogmatic and resistant to new or threatening ideas. This is not a proof for my beliefs. In fact, I think I have made it clear that I am not attempting to prove the unprovable... I am just using open-eyed acceptance of well established principles of logic, reason and... yes, science... to show you that your conjectures are not proofs. Much of what you assert are simply your opinions cloaked in a typical logical fallacy... that of argument from authority.

In principle and in the ideal, perhaps. In practice, science deals with whatever they can get funding to deal with. This means that they tend to focus on things of interest to corporations, governments, militaries, and academic institutions. The fantasy of the objective scientist striving for abstract truth and perfection is a fantasy.

This may or may not be true, but this has little to do with our debate. There is no way to disprove pantheism, pandeism, panentheism or any philosophical stance vis a vis an intelligence inherent in the design of creation. Furthermore, such concepts are not alternatives to scientific theories, but rather encompass them. Pantheists do not debate against physical laws or accepted scientific theories... they merely view the material Universe itself as divine.

Basic critical thinking is also not trying to lump a bunch of different concepts together and then attack one that has not been proffered as a method of debunking the ones that have. It is a rather common logical fallacy, and one that should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. No one ever said that all ideas are equally valid or equally true. Thus, for you to act as if this is the case is an example of the Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy.

No. To criticize something for making mistakes is an expected outcome of that institution frequently claiming to be either infallible or the final arbiter of truth. Science sets itself up as the arbitrator of truth in our society. Many scientists cast unfounded judgments on any way of looking at the world which is not part of their elite club. Thus, to point out the rather large amounts of time that science has been absolutely wrong is a valid piece of information to deflate the incessant argument from authority.

As do yours. Unfortunately, the claims I made are rather narrow and not nearly as sweeping as those you have made. I claimed that the Universe is teeming with intelligence... and according to accepted definitions of that word, it pretty much is. I then said that this intelligence is a good argument for intelligent design. That the apparent fine tuning of the world around us also seems to demonstrate some form of intelligence is something you latched onto, but is not really much of a claim.

You, on the other hand, have claimed that scientific data proves Atheism.

And on the Spirituality & Mysticism subforum no less...

Your opinon... and even then, you have proven or disproven nothing with physics or any branch of science. This is why these are matters that are given their own fields of study... namely Philosophy.
Another opinion... and an unprovable one no less.

My "faculty of understanding?" You were the one who insisted on this rather narrow definition. Putting words into the mouth of your debate adversary is not a good debate technique. Thankfully, debates are not founded on hard sciences, but rather on logic, epistemology, ontology and other subdivisions of... Philosophy.

Likewise.


Note: The above arguments apply equally to the posts of Aetherius Rimor and the others who have seconded Citta's line of reasoning here.

Wow hyperspace fool really murdered that guy, what a great read I hope I don't get in trouble for bumping this

Lol yeah, great debate. It's unfortunate HF doesn't post much anymore. A PM discussion on the topic of Salvia Divinorum he and I had is one of the reasons I started posting here at the Nexus.. I feel he's definitely an asset to this community.

I really miss HF..where are you?

So do i.



He"s probably serving time after having murdered Citta.

Nice.

Thanks for this thread my friend. This^ has been my experience as well 😄. Life is magic for me, sycronicities abound and the universe definitely has a sense of humor. Now I'm just learning to trust the universe, see the omens and live in the moment.