Evidence of design

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Here we are and explanations are good while disregarding the things that defy explanation without accepting the design there. There is no reason to think the parameters are what they are that make anything of the universe possible, along with us, when slight differences wouldn't have that, and it is only said we are here, and so it is that way. That is not explaining why. You would still imagine something beyond the universe for it, that is just multitudes of unproven universes, rather than the Creator that you would dismiss. Why are we even here knowing the truth, with it really that?

I have to quote Douglas Adams and his Sentient Puddle story from Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia :

"imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."​

If things were different, then things would be different. Life as we know it might not exist but what other forms of life are possible in a differently parametered universe? Have you ruled them all out? How do you know?? Have you even ruled out any other life forms existing anywhere else in this universe?

So show me where this 'designer' has designed things? We know that biological life is simply complex chemistry & we can account for the individual motions & reactions that occur in our DNA, these mechanisms are known quite well - no designer aside non-sentient mutation & natural selection. We know how stars form, solar systems acrete & black holes come about. Again, all from the existing & largely known parameters of the universe. If this universe is designed for anything, it's the formation of black holes! There are already more black holes in this universe right now than there ever will be humans walking around on this planet in its entire lifetime... All under the known parameters of this Universe.

 

[FredVB]

Even a little incremental difference in a number of parameters would have none of us or anything known about of existence possible. Here we are and explanations are good while disregarding the things that defy explanation without accepting the design there. There is no reason to think the parameters are what they are that make anything of the universe possible, along with us, when slight differences wouldn't have that, and it is only said we are here, and so it is that way. That is not explaining why. You would still imagine something beyond the universe for it, that is just multitudes of unproven universes, rather than the Creator that you would dismiss. Why are we even here knowing the truth, with it really that?

What I really said was regarding how much there is, with orderliness, and all working so well. With however much complexity you can come up with, you can't have it work as well as you yourself, and certainly not with whatever you come up with presuming it can know the truth.

Bees show intelligent design. And we ourselves are not explained with a few simple rules.

How is it not arrogance to dismiss unexplained appearance of design showing God?

You don't have any other universes to show, and one with just the parameters to turn out to be a universe that works is not at all likely, and there is no known cause for those independent parameters to be what they are.

As was just said, we have no other universes to compare with to say that our universe is unlikely - that's why it's often called the appearance of fine tuning. We don't know if the parameters could be different, whether they are different in other parts of the universe or multiverse, or whether quite different forms of life could result if they were different. We don't yet know, and we may never know; you can imagine all you like, but your preferred origin myth is just one of many such imaginative constructions in history.
Incidentally - if, as you say, "there is no known cause for those independent parameters to be what they are", how can you justify claiming 'God did it'?

If just certain parameters were the slightest bit different, from the big bang that scientists speak of, the universe couldn't keep expanding, and would soon contract and collapse, with no life having formed, or else have matter expand and dissipate, with no life having formed. Just for that to be that way has no explanation except for something transcendent explaining it, which is well explained with speaking of design to it, or what your explanation may be, yet without proof or evidence. There are bases meaningful to people that God intervenes, so there is that for the design that we can see.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Perhaps it's due to strange sentence construction or something, but it sounds like gibber gabber.
I can only repeat myself: levels of complexity are no indicators of "artificial design".

I fixed the wording slightly to make what I said more obvious, apparently that was needed, for some who are not seeing we are designed. So that repetition posted is not really answering adequately. Yes, the level of complexity in us is such indication, among any that may show it, to have such things made that can come to know a great number of things to be true, and to presume to know what is truth further. This is what such among us do. Tell me, how is that come to be qualified? Random processes in nature can lead to such?

I have to quote Douglas Adams and his Sentient Puddle story from Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia :

"imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."​

If things were different, then things would be different. Life as we know it might not exist but what other forms of life are possible in a differently parametered universe? Have you ruled them all out? How do you know?? Have you even ruled out any other life forms existing anywhere else in this universe?

So show me where this 'designer' has designed things? We know that biological life is simply complex chemistry & we can account for the individual motions & reactions that occur in our DNA, these mechanisms are known quite well - no designer aside non-sentient mutation & natural selection. We know how stars form, solar systems acrete & black holes come about. Again, all from the existing & largely known parameters of the universe. If this universe is designed for anything, it's the formation of black holes! There are already more black holes in this universe right now than there ever will be humans walking around on this planet in its entire lifetime... All under the known parameters of this Universe.

As I showed above, a differently parametered universe will generally not have any life possible, any life possible is still in an extraordinarily close range of slight difference in such important parameters, to have in such universe coming from the stated big bang. Certainly as far as I can know there can be life possible in some other places in the universe, as there could be faraway places that are such. And that other things are most possible along with that doesn't change that from being the case. Evasive argument is something you would see necessary for coming up with in response to such.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If just certain parameters were the slightest bit different, from the big bang that scientists speak of, the universe couldn't keep expanding, and would soon contract and collapse, with no life having formed, or else have matter expand and dissipate, with no life having formed. Just for that to be that way has no explanation except for something transcendent explaining it, which is well explained with speaking of design to it, or what your explanation may be, yet without proof or evidence. There are bases meaningful to people that God intervenes, so there is that for the design that we can see.

That assumes that a universe can even form with different physical properties than what we observe, as well as assuming that the only universe exists is this one, and failing to recognize the fact that only in a universe in which life is possible can there be living beings such as ourselves which ponder these existential questions.

I fixed the wording slightly to make what I said more obvious, apparently that was needed, for some who are not seeing we are designed. So that repetition posted is not really answering adequately. Yes, the level of complexity in us is such indication, among any that may show it, to have such things made that can come to know a great number of things to be true, and to presume to know what is truth further. This is what such among us do. Tell me, how is that come to be qualified? Random processes in nature can lead to such?

The error you make is assuming that nature is completely random. Natural selection is not random. In fact, the only part of evolution with any degree of randomness is mutation, and even that isn't entirely random as certain mutations are more likely to happen than others (while in a completely random situation, all mutations would be equally likely). Natural process aren't random, it's just that they don't have any inherent goals.

As I showed above, a differently parametered universe will generally not have any life possible, any life possible is still in an extraordinarily close range of slight difference in such important parameters, to have in such universe coming from the stated big bang. Certainly as far as I can know there can be life possible in some other places in the universe, as there could be faraway places that are such. And that other things are most possible along with that doesn't change that from being the case. Evasive argument is something you would see necessary for coming up with in response to such.

How the universe could have been is irrelevant; regardless as to how unlikely, how our universe is obviously isn't impossible, because it exists. As long as that remains true, no matter how many possible outcomes could have existed for our universe, no matter what statistics you pull from thin air because we know so little about our universe we can't even make claims on how likely it is, this outcome was possible, and it happened. For all we know, the universe we existed in had multiple big bangs and collapses before settling into this somewhat more stable form.

 

[FredVB]

If just certain parameters were the slightest bit different, from the big bang that scientists speak of, the universe couldn't keep expanding, and would soon contract and collapse, with no life having formed, or else have matter expand and dissipate, with no life having formed. Just for that to be that way has no explanation except for something transcendent explaining it, which is well explained with speaking of design to it, or what your explanation may be, yet without proof or evidence. There are bases meaningful to people that God intervenes, so there is that for the design that we can see.

That assumes that a universe can even form with different physical properties than what we observe, as well as assuming that the only universe exists is this one, and failing to recognize the fact that only in a universe in which life is possible can there be living beings such as ourselves which ponder these existential questions.

No. It doesn't assume that a universe can even form with different physical properties, though I don't rule out existence beyond this universe. It is scientists theorizing the multiverse they have as explanation apart from God as explanation that assume that. I am not failing to recognize the fact that only in a universe in which life is possible can there be living beings such as ourselves which ponder these existential questions. That parameters just match what a universe coming from a big bang as explained having life possible, without causal connection possible, is not explainable, even with that being the only universe. It is not I, but others, as scientists, theorize a multiverse with different parameters in other universes to explain this one that works with its parameters like that. Again, that is without evidence. I don't think this should be so hard to explain for it to be recognized ... and acknowledged.

Yes, the level of complexity in us is such indication, among any that may show it, to have such things made that can come to know a great number of things to be true, and to presume to know what is truth further. This is what such among us do. Tell me, how is that come to be qualified? Random processes in nature can lead to such?

The error you make is assuming that nature is completely random. Natural selection is not random. In fact, the only part of evolution with any degree of randomness is mutation, and even that isn't entirely random as certain mutations are more likely to happen than others (while in a completely random situation, all mutations would be equally likely). Natural process aren't random, it's just that they don't have any inherent goals.

Then natural processes without any inherent goals behind them leads to such?

As I showed above, a differently parametered universe will generally not have any life possible, any life possible is still in an extraordinarily close range of slight difference in such important parameters, to have in such universe coming from the stated big bang. Certainly as far as I can know there can be life possible in some other places in the universe, as there could be faraway places that are such. And that other things are most possible along with that doesn't change that from being the case. Evasive argument is something you would see necessary for coming up with in response to such.

How the universe could have been is irrelevant; regardless as to how unlikely, how our universe is obviously isn't impossible, because it exists. As long as that remains true, no matter how many possible outcomes could have existed for our universe, no matter what statistics you pull from thin air because we know so little about our universe we can't even make claims on how likely it is, this outcome was possible, and it happened. For all we know, the universe we existed in had multiple big bangs and collapses before settling into this somewhat more stable form.

No, it is relevant, because on this basis people can recognize the Creator, as there would be nothing ever existing without necessary existence. The possibility exists from what exists, not from nothing existing. Expansion after collapse won't happen from what has too little elasticity for that, and such thought to be still gives no explanation for it.

 

[FredVB]

When I make points that can't get logical argument that would effectively counter them, posters will continue in the thread just in response to other discussion there, or if there isn't that, they will just continue with posting what my points invalidate in other threads that are started instead, ad infinitum. It's why it seems to be wasted effort to try to point out these valid points.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

No. It doesn't assume that a universe can even form with different physical properties, though I don't rule out existence beyond this universe. It is scientists theorizing the multiverse they have as explanation apart from God as explanation that assume that. I am not failing to recognize the fact that only in a universe in which life is possible can there be living beings such as ourselves which ponder these existential questions. That parameters just match what a universe coming from a big bang as explained having life possible, without causal connection possible, is not explainable, even with that being the only universe. It is not I, but others, as scientists, theorize a multiverse with different parameters in other universes to explain this one that works with its parameters like that. Again, that is without evidence. I don't think this should be so hard to explain for it to be recognized ... and acknowledged.

The multiverse idea came about because the inflationary model we currently have for the beginning of our universe, suggests it. It didn't come about to "do without a God" or some such nonsense - if you were around before the Inflationary model was formulated, you'll note there was never any talk of what was out there before this universe came about, it was always "We don't know".

Then natural processes without any inherent goals behind them leads to such?

Yes.

No, it is relevant, because on this basis people can recognize the Creator, as there would be nothing ever existing without necessary existence. The possibility exists from what exists, not from nothing existing. Expansion after collapse won't happen from what has too little elasticity for that, and such thought to be still gives no explanation for it.

Well, it isn't because as has been pointed out, we don't know if we're one universe amongst an infinitely spawning multiverse of universes, or that this is the only universe that could exist, or any variant of this universe existing you want to imagine. What you're doing is coming to a conclusion without all the info. Even the foremost physicists and cosmologists stop short of predicting how this universe came to be (and a great many of them don't believe in any Gods, and they know much more about the universe than you and I put together ever will) - the other thing we can do (my favourite universe existence explanation in these circles) is to use whatever reason your God was there to start the universe as the reason why this universe (or multiverse) started or came from.

When I make points that can't get logical argument that would effectively counter them, posters will continue in the thread just in response to other discussion there, or if there isn't that, they will just continue with posting what my points invalidate in other threads that are started instead, ad infinitum. It's why it seems to be wasted effort to try to point out these valid points.

Feel free to throw at me whatever you think hasn't been answered and I'll help you through it.

 

[FredVB]

The multiverse idea came about because the inflationary model we currently have for the beginning of our universe, suggests it. It didn't come about to "do without a God" or some such nonsense - if you were around before the Inflationary model was formulated, you'll note there was never any talk of what was out there before this universe came about, it was always "We don't know".

Well I look at it and it is interesting, strange as the theories seem to get, but what I see from that isn't answering my challenges. If this universe is what spawned other universes of the multiverse through the inflation that I yet don't see explained, it is still not explained how this universe is the one set up with parameters unrelated to any known thing perfect for it coming about, and with inflation coming to further universes, if that, when a tiny difference would make the universe impossible to develop for any habitation however alien, with stars impossible, atoms impossible, or collapse of the universe happening too quickly, from the time of this big bang.

And you don't know yet what is out there, beyond the universe, what basis is there to exclude there is unlimited being, that there is mind, there behind it all, even when we can't understand what it is like with our human perspective limited as it is? I don't think there is any such basis. And I would say it makes more sense to understand some intelligence necessarily produced our intelligence, and it isn't all from processes without intelligence. How can you know that what you perceive is really the truth of it, that you really know it? If everything is from processes without intelligence, that isn't reliable. But I understand necessary being had to always be around, and caused us and what we see exists now, for anything to ever exist.

Then natural processes without any inherent goals behind them leads to such?

Yes.

What I was asking it would lead to was about this that I asked. The level of complexity in us is such indication, among any that may show it, to have such things (as us) made that can come to know a great number of things to be true, and to presume to know what is truth further, as such among us do. How is that come to be qualified? And you now say natural processes without any inherent goals behind them qualifies that enough. That's not credible.

No, it is relevant, because on this basis people can recognize the Creator, as there would be nothing ever existing without necessary existence. The possibility exists from what exists, not from nothing existing. Expansion after collapse won't happen from what has too little elasticity for that, and such thought to be still gives no explanation for it.

Well, it isn't because as has been pointed out, we don't know if we're one universe amongst an infinitely spawning multiverse of universes, or that this is the only universe that could exist, or any variant of this universe existing you want to imagine. What you're doing is coming to a conclusion without all the info. Even the foremost physicists and cosmologists stop short of predicting how this universe came to be (and a great many of them don't believe in any Gods, and they know much more about the universe than you and I put together ever will) - the other thing we can do (my favourite universe existence explanation in these circles) is to use whatever reason your God was there to start the universe as the reason why this universe (or multiverse) started or came from.

I said it is relevant there is the basis for recognizing the Creator as nothing would exist without necessary existence, and everything would not come from nothing existing. You answered that it isn't without answering that. I make the basis that there is necessary existence, this is what isn't being dealt with that should be in responses to me. All the information that I don't have isn't needed for this. I do have faith where basis on knowledge doesn't reach, but there is basis on knowledge. It is the same for all, and you too, and cosmologists and physicists. But what I stated of the parameters is known. And it had a beginning. The necessary being I say we should consider did not have a beginning. Necessary existence, being that, always exists, and without limit. The universe, or multiverse is not that. So explaining the universe being with what explains the Creator doesn't work that way. What the universe or multiverse can't be, the being that is without limit can be, and as necessary existence that the universe isn't, is greater than the universe. We don't know how, but existence explains itself with that of it which is necessary. That always existed, there was never just nothing, and the universe was caused from that, but is not that necessary existence. The universe is limited, certainly with having a beginning, and changes with things in it failing and being temporary. What I consider for God is that necessary being, that would be without limits, and not be caused or have beginning, as even the universe did. So the universe or universes can't have the same explanation that I see this being, the Creator, has. If there is a God that isn't this, and needed a beginning as well, this God that is like that is lesser than what I think of for God.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well I look at it and it is interesting, strange as the theories seem to get, but what I see from that isn't answering my challenges. If this universe is what spawned other universes of the multiverse through the inflation that I yet don't see explained, it is still not explained how this universe is the one set up with parameters unrelated to any known thing perfect for it coming about, and with inflation coming to further universes, if that, when a tiny difference would make the universe impossible to develop for any habitation however alien, with stars impossible, atoms impossible, or collapse of the universe happening too quickly, from the time of this big bang.

-_- maybe universes are spawned all the time with wonky physics, and we just happen to exist in one in which life can develop. Or, as I have mentioned many times, since we are unable to assess the physics of any universe aside from this one, it is entirely possible that universes with the physics we find familiar ever come to be, and there is no variation in that regard.

And you don't know yet what is out there, beyond the universe, what basis is there to exclude there is unlimited being, that there is mind, there behind it all, even when we can't understand what it is like with our human perspective limited as it is?

Anything outside of a universe is liable to be unable to interact within it, and anything without detectable input is pretty meaningless to our lives, honestly.

I don't think there is any such basis. And I would say it makes more sense to understand some intelligence necessarily produced our intelligence, and it isn't all from processes without intelligence.

If an intelligence is necessary to produce our intelligence, then it would be even more necessary for that intelligence to have a creator of it, and so on and so forth.

How can you know that what you perceive is really the truth of it, that you really know it? If everything is from processes without intelligence, that isn't reliable. But I understand necessary being had to always be around, and caused us and what we see exists now, for anything to ever exist.

Water flows down the path of least resistance consistently and reliably, but neither of us would argue that water itself has any intelligence within it.

What I was asking it would lead to was about this that I asked. The level of complexity in us is such indication, among any that may show it, to have such things (as us) made that can come to know a great number of things to be true, and to presume to know what is truth further, as such among us do. How is that come to be qualified? And you now say natural processes without any inherent goals behind them qualifies that enough. That's not credible.

Complexity is irrelevant to whether or not something is designed. A cave formation can be much more complex than a pair of scissors, but it is the simple scissors which are designed, not the cave formation.

I said it is relevant there is the basis for recognizing the Creator as nothing would exist without necessary existence, and everything would not come from nothing existing.

You've provided no evidence that a creator is necessary, you just keep saying it is.

And it had a beginning.

There was a point in time in which the expansion of the universe happened, but we have no idea how long the universe existed prior to that, or even if asking a time based question is valid.

The necessary being I say we should consider did not have a beginning. Necessary existence, being that, always exists, and without limit.

Applying a hypothetical trait to a hypothetical being for which there is no evidence.

 

[FredVB]

CN PsychoSarah, these seem to be short quips for answers without ever having real consideration of such things, as if such is so undesirable.

Well I look at it and it is interesting, strange as the theories seem to get, but what I see from that isn't answering my challenges. If this universe is what spawned other universes of the multiverse through the inflation that I yet don't see explained, it is still not explained how this universe is the one set up with parameters unrelated to any known thing perfect for it coming about, and with inflation coming to further universes, if that, when a tiny difference would make the universe impossible to develop for any habitation however alien, with stars impossible, atoms impossible, or collapse of the universe happening too quickly, from the time of this big bang.

-_- maybe universes are spawned all the time with wonky physics, and we just happen to exist in one in which life can develop. Or, as I have mentioned many times, since we are unable to assess the physics of any universe aside from this one, it is entirely possible that universes with the physics we find familiar ever come to be, and there is no variation in that regard.

If we are just going to guess how it might be so, it is such a guess, but not explanation of natural processes that I see is being insisted on. And it is not a better guess than that there is real purpose behind it, when explanation is offered for that as well. And without such others not from this universe, which is really guessed at with no real basis from what is known, other such universes from this one depend on this one to start with that inexplicably has the parameters just right for it. If there is no variation of the physical constants, as that might be the case if there are the other universes which are still never observed to be with any evidence, why do the constants that are not related to any known thing all happen to be just right for the universe(s) working for habitation anywhere in it/them possible, when slight variation would make it not possible?

And you don't know yet what is out there, beyond the universe, what basis is there to exclude there is unlimited being, that there is mind, there behind it all, even when we can't understand what it is like with our human perspective limited as it is?

Anything outside of a universe is liable to be unable to interact within it, and anything without detectable input is pretty meaningless to our lives, honestly.

It would be true any in another universe, if there were any other which is unknown, would not have a way to interact with anything within this universe. But it isn't the case for such necessary being that is transcendent, and anywhere in the universe, being unlimited with being necessary existence. You without faith won't see it, but believers can see there is interaction with meaning. We will just see it because we are open to it, so it is not excluded.

And I would say it makes more sense to understand some intelligence necessarily produced our intelligence, and it isn't all from processes without intelligence. How can you know that what you perceive is really the truth of it, that you really know it? If everything is from processes without intelligence, that isn't reliable. But I understand necessary being had to always be around, and caused us and what we see exists now, for anything to ever exist.

If an intelligence is necessary to produce our intelligence, then it would be even more necessary for that intelligence to have a creator of it, and so on and so forth.

No, there isn't a logical basis to say that. If a human intelligence was meant, then yes that would have a creator needed for it. But with talking of necessary existence, which it seems you have trouble with considering, intelligence is not excluded, when intelligence seems to be behind purposeful constants of the parameters having our universe with habitation somewhere in it possible. Intelligence then is necessary of necessary being, and explains our real intelligence being made, as anything else wouldn't and would leave it doubtful for us that others of us are with any real intelligence. Such necessary intelligence isn't limited, and not like our human intelligence, which limited as would be the case can't conceive such intelligence, though its existence can be understood.

The level of complexity in us is such indication, among any that may show it, to have such things (as us) made that can come to know a great number of things to be true, and to presume to know what is truth further, as such among us do. How is that come to be qualified? And you now say natural processes without any inherent goals behind them qualifies that enough. That's not credible.

Water flows down the path of least resistance consistently and reliably, but neither of us would argue that water itself has any intelligence within it.

The water flows down with increasing entropy, this doesn't have it be a parallel for an example of comparison for intelligence from natural processes. And qualification for knowing real truth, and presumption for truth to be known, for what forms from natural processes, is yet not credible for trusting.

Complexity is irrelevant to whether or not something is designed. A cave formation can be much more complex than a pair of scissors, but it is the simple scissors which are designed, not the cave formation.

There is indeed random complexity, there isn't such intelligence just from that. But intelligence would not credibly be from something even complex formed with complexity from natural processes, as random complexity. There wouldn't be anything formed trustworthy for that showing or even knowing what real truth of reality is, from such.

I said it is relevant there is the basis for recognizing the Creator as nothing would exist without necessary existence, and everything would not come from nothing existing. You answered that it isn't without answering that. I make the basis that there is necessary existence, this is what isn't being dealt with that should be in responses to me. All the information that I don't have isn't needed for this. I do have faith where basis on knowledge doesn't reach, but there is basis on knowledge. It is the same for all, and you too, and cosmologists and physicists. But what I stated of the parameters is known. And it had a beginning. The necessary being I say we should consider did not have a beginning. Necessary existence, being that, always exists, and without limit. The universe, or multiverse is not that. So explaining the universe being with what explains the Creator doesn't work that way. What the universe or multiverse can't be, the being that is without limit can be, and as necessary existence that the universe isn't, is greater than the universe. We don't know how, but existence explains itself with that of it which is necessary.

You've provided no evidence that a creator is necessary, you just keep saying it is.

I show logic that there is for understanding there is necessary existence, with it appearing you have difficulty with such logic. If there was no existence necessary, regardless if we don't know why, nothing would exist, because there can't be anything coming to be from nothing existing. Something can't explain its own existence unless it is necessary existence. And what is necessary existence is what there is to explain anything else existing. I can call this the Creator.

That always existed, there was never just nothing, and the universe was caused from that, but is not that necessary existence. The universe is limited, certainly with having a beginning, and changes with things in it failing and being temporary.

There was a point in time in which the expansion of the universe happened, but we have no idea how long the universe existed prior to that, or even if asking a time based question is valid.

There are assumptions made here, either of a contracting universe which rebounded, which requires an elasticity that can't be shown and isn't realistic, or of what I too have heard Hawking espouse, that time curved around from the universe already being to start the universe we are in, which in reality is pushing the question away but it still is to be addressed, why there is anything at all, with time somehow "before" or whatever being in place for it, or not. If it were the necessary existence then it would explain itself, but not curving around, and being eternal, and not changing, being invariable, as such is with what is necessary, and I show the argument that the universe isn't this.

What I consider for God is that necessary being, that would be without limits, and not be caused or have beginning, as even the universe was and had. So the universe or universes can't have the same explanation that I see this being, the Creator, has. If there is a God that isn't this, and needed a beginning as well, this God that is like that is lesser than what I think of for God.

Applying a hypothetical trait to a hypothetical being for which there is no evidence.

I showed there is necessary being, with logic, and why it's not the universe, or hypothetical universes. So logically from that, necessary being is something other, and with causing what we have with the universe, I can call this the Creator. I have shown this. There are not hypothetical traits I have stated here to the necessary being, and calling this the Creator is legitimate. And my faith, which I can say is with basis, which you might want to argue against separately, as it is not a part of physical or life sciences, is with what I understand this being God.

Feel free to throw at me whatever you think hasn't been answered and I'll help you through it.

Well?

Maybe it's too challenging. If it is, my points should still be considered. You could even let me know if you have questions, even if later on, through posts, private communication, or whatever. Maybe I could help with further explanations, too. If it's not that, were my points just left for another person to respond to instead?

 

[FredVB]

Feel free to throw at me whatever you think hasn't been answered and I'll help you through it.

It seems funny that some who post contrary to points I make will talk as though they know much more about something, which they can show me, but drop out when I show there are points that they can't answer.

CN PsychoSarah, these seem to be short quips for answers without ever having real consideration of such things, as if such is so undesirable.

If we are just going to guess how it might be so, it is such a guess, but not explanation of natural processes that I see is being insisted on. And it is not a better guess than that there is real purpose behind it, when explanation is offered for that as well. And without such others not from this universe, which is really guessed at with no real basis from what is known, other such universes from this one depend on this one to start with that inexplicably has the parameters just right for it. If there is no variation of the physical constants, as that might be the case if there are the other universes which are still never observed to be with any evidence, why do the constants that are not related to any known thing all happen to be just right for the universe(s) working for habitation anywhere in it/them possible, when slight variation would make it not possible?

It would be true any in another universe, if there were any other which is unknown, would not have a way to interact with anything within this universe. But it isn't the case for such necessary being that is transcendent, and anywhere in the universe, being unlimited with being necessary existence. You without faith won't see it, but believers can see there is interaction with meaning. We will just see it because we are open to it, so it is not excluded.

No, there isn't a logical basis to say that. If a human intelligence was meant, then yes that would have a creator needed for it. But with talking of necessary existence, which it seems you have trouble with considering, intelligence is not excluded, when intelligence seems to be behind purposeful constants of the parameters having our universe with habitation somewhere in it possible. Intelligence then is necessary of necessary being, and explains our real intelligence being made, as anything else wouldn't and would leave it doubtful for us that others of us are with any real intelligence. Such necessary intelligence isn't limited, and not like our human intelligence, which limited as would be the case can't conceive such intelligence, though its existence can be understood.

The water flows down with increasing entropy, this doesn't have it be a parallel for an example of comparison for intelligence from natural processes. And qualification for knowing real truth, and presumption for truth to be known, for what forms from natural processes, is yet not credible for trusting.

There is indeed random complexity, there isn't such intelligence just from that. But intelligence would not credibly be from something even complex formed with complexity from natural processes, as random complexity. There wouldn't be anything formed trustworthy for that showing or even knowing what real truth of reality is, from such.

I show logic that there is for understanding there is necessary existence, with it appearing you have difficulty with such logic. If there was no existence necessary, regardless if we don't know why, nothing would exist, because there can't be anything coming to be from nothing existing. Something can't explain its own existence unless it is necessary existence. And what is necessary existence is what there is to explain anything else existing. I can call this the Creator.

There are assumptions made here, either of a contracting universe which rebounded, which requires an elasticity that can't be shown and isn't realistic, or of what I too have heard Hawking espouse, that time curved around from the universe already being to start the universe we are in, which in reality is pushing the question away but it still is to be addressed, why there is anything at all, with time somehow "before" or whatever being in place for it, or not. If it were the necessary existence then it would explain itself, but not curving around, and being eternal, and not changing, being invariable, as such is with what is necessary, and I show the argument that the universe isn't this.

I showed there is necessary being, with logic, and why it's not the universe, or hypothetical universes. So logically from that, necessary being is something other, and with causing what we have with the universe, I can call this the Creator. I have shown this. There are not hypothetical traits I have stated here to the necessary being, and calling this the Creator is legitimate. And my faith, which I can say is with basis, which you might want to argue against separately, as it is not a part of physical or life sciences, is with what I understand this being God.

You are stating that you find yourself in your current position in the universe questioning the odds of it happening due to the complexity (or "random complexity") and concluding there must be a God.

Let us put this in different terms I sit in front of 8 six sided dice and marvel at the fact that in front of is a roll that the odds of getting in this particular order is 1/1.6million. 1,5,6,1,2,5,5 and 4 -> No joke the odds of getting that roll is over 1 in 1.6million and yet I have it!

You have asserted that it is all "Random complexity" but as we have found with Evolution by natural selection what first appeared as random is anything but. Who knows with a little more knowledge of how the universe was created it may not be random at all.

But even if it turns out you are correct and it is completely random this is still much more likely to occur than a God figure - as stated before such a being would be infinitely less likely to occur.

No, there is random complexity, but I don't say this can produce ordered cimplexity, certainly not such that produces intelligence that will know of things being really true.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, there is random complexity, but I don't say this can produce ordered cimplexity, certainly not such that produces intelligence that will know of things being really true.

I used to have students do a little simulation with dice, showing how random variation and natural selection could produce ordered complexity.

Would you like to try it?

 

[FredVB]

It seems funny that some who post contrary to points I make will talk as though they know much more about something, which they can show me, but drop out when I show there are points that they can't answer.

No, there is random complexity, but I don't say this can produce ordered complexity, certainly not such that produces intelligence that will know of things being really true.

I used to have students do a little simulation with dice, showing how random variation and natural selection could produce ordered complexity.
Would you like to try it?

There can be an apparent order from randomly produced complexity, but if we talk about true highly functional order, and especially such that we trust to give us minds that will know truth of anything around us, even our cosmos, no, there is isn't any of that convincingly shown from random processes. If we have that produced at all credibly it is from design.

That necessary existence is all that could explain any of us or anything existing can't be effectively argued against. I would say that for this it makes no sense for any to say they know there is no God.