The gods concept and false arguments against it

[Norsefire]

Often I see the argument, " We don't know if there is a god, sure, but we also don't know if santa clause exists." Or perhaps, "and we also don't know if a giant celestial teapot exists"

Yes, that's very true. However, that is such a weak and face-value view of things.

The main difference between, say, Santa Clause and the concept of gods is this:

"What leads you to that conclusion?"

This is what separates the concepts; sure, they both have no real evidence. However, one has logical basis, whereas the other has none whatsoever (santa)

If I were to ask you about what led you to the conclusion of Santa, you could not give me any observation to support your conclusion. There is nothing we can observe that leads us to the conclusion of santa, or a giant celestial teapot.

What leads you to the conclusion of a giant celestial teapot?

As for gods, I've already explained the intelligence-complexity conclusion, and therefore they have a basis. Of course, only the actual gods concept, not any specification or detail of it (because THAT does not have a basis)

They aren't comparable.

[superluminal]

So what you are saying is that santa or the great teapot are not logical conclusions based on general observations of the universe, but that a creator-god is. Right? And what personal bias leads you to this? I myself see no more logic (less, in fact) in a creator-god than I do in santa claus.

You are presupposing your own biased conclusion.

[Norsefire]

So what you are saying is that santa or the great teapot are not logical conclusions based on general observations of the universe, but that a creator-god is. Right? And what personal bias leads you to this? I myself see no more logic (less, in fact) in a creator-god than I do in santa claus.

Santa and the giant teapot are possible, sure, but so are alot of things, and what we know of the universe has to be what we can actually observe with our senses.

That's for what we can know

As for suppositions, they require logical grounds. I do think the concept of gods has a logical grounds as to the conclusion; after all, think about it, many civilizations around the world came up with the gods concept, those that did not speak to each other even. Certainly they had their own variation, but for the most part, it was the same concept. Why?

It's quite simple to understand. Human beings, being intelligent, realized that intelligence can create complexity and influence their surroundings. Because the Earth is quite complex and there are forces of influence, we might attribute this to a higher intelligence. And higher intelligence is not an illogical concept.

Besides, if we can make any conclusion about the origins of our universe, it seemingly HAD to have either been created or originated without being created. What else is there? And neither of this suppositions are illogical, after all we Human beings create alot of things.

[Betrayer0fHope]

Santa and the giant teapot are possible, sure, but so are alot of things, and what we know of the universe has to be what we can actually observe with our senses.

That's for what we can know

As for suppositions, they require logical grounds. I do think the concept of gods has a logical grounds as to the conclusion; after all, think about it, many civilizations around the world came up with the gods concept, those that did not speak to each other even. Certainly they had their own variation, but for the most part, it was the same concept. Why?

It's quite simple to understand. Human beings, being intelligent, realized that intelligence can create complexity and influence their surroundings. Because the Earth is quite complex and there are forces of influence, we might attribute this to a higher intelligence. And higher intelligence is not an illogical concept.

Besides, if we can make any conclusion about the origins of our universe, it seemingly HAD to have either been created or originated without being created. What else is there? And neither of this suppositions are illogical, after all we Human beings create alot of things.

Giant celestial teapots that created all that we know, mind you.

[Norsefire]

Giant celestial teapots that created all that we know, mind you.

What about them?

[superluminal]

OK. You've explained (fairly reasonably) why humans may have "invented" the god idea. And the reasoning behind it seems logical. But that is different from claiming that the idea is a logical conclusion. It may have been at one time. And for children, santa is a logical conclusion based on observations and the testimony of those in authority. But they grow up and most (not all) of them realise the actual situation.

This is exactly the situation that many pre-modern adults found themselves in. Based on the testimony of those in authority, and observations of the universe, it seemed like the only real possibility. But as societies matured and a better (more adult) way of looking at the universe was developed, we "grew up" (not all of us) and realized the actual situation.

You see? The santa analogy/argument is probably one of the simplest and most direct demonstrations of the nature of religion. Your statements seem to be a biased (subconsciously?) attempt to give respectability and weight to what is really no more compelling than a childs story.

[Norsefire]

OK. You've explained (fairly reasonably) why humans may have "invented" the god idea. And the reasoning behind it seems logical. But that is different from claiming that the idea is a logical conclusion. It may have been at one time. And for children, santa is a logical conclusion based on observations and the testimony of those in authority. But they grow up and most (not all) of them realise the actual situation. It is a logical supposition, and remains very much on the table as one of the explanations of the origins of our universe

And santa has no observational basis, and therefore isn't the same as the god idea. It's purely faith based, but the idea never originated by observation, as the idea of god likely did.

This is exactly the situation that many pre-modern adults found themselves in. Based on the testimony of those in authority, and observations of the universe, it seemed like the only real possibility.
The testimony of those in authority is hardly any reason to have a belief in gods. However, there is more than testimony, as I've explained: there is observation. And that is why it remains a viable and very real possibility.

But as societies matured and a better (more adult) way of looking at the universe was developed, we "grew up" (not all of us) and realized the actual situation. What is the "actual situation"?

The actual situation is that we have no clue. However, we do know that things are either caused intentionally, as by intelligent forces, or happen without intelligent intervention, and therefore we can conclude that our universe was either created or was not created. That's the actual situation.

You see? The santa analogy/argument is probably one of the simplest and most direct demonstrations of the nature of religion.

Ah, you're right, but you said the nature of religion. I am not speaking of blind faith religion, nor of worship, nor of anything of the sort. I'm merely speaking of the core concept of intelligence, which isn't comparable to a child's story.

[Betrayer0fHope]

Proof that santa doesnt exist:

[superluminal]

Good proof. Thanks.

[SkinWalker]

What leads you to the conclusion of a giant celestial teapot?

As for gods, I've already explained the intelligence-complexity conclusion,

For the sake of context, perhaps you'd care to list the syllogism of premises that lead to your conclusion for gods.

[superluminal]

Well norse, as far as the idea that the universe had or did not have an intelligence behind it's origin (if it even had an origin), that is pure metaphysics in my book and remains a cocktail party chit-chat topic. My santa argument applies to conventional religions. Sorry I wen't down that path again.

[Norsefire]

For the sake of context, perhaps you'd care to list the syllogism of premises that lead to your conclusion for gods.

Perhaps I should be more precise: it leads to the conclusion of the possibility of gods. And not just a "it's possible" as with the celestial teapot, but rather actually a very real possible explanation.


The premise is quite simple: intelligence can create complexity and is influential; our world is complex and there are forces of influence. There is either intelligence or nature, thus the only possiblities are intelligence or nature behind it.

[superluminal]

There is either intelligence or nature, thus the only possiblities are intelligence or nature behind it.
Isn't this axiomatic though? Is this really a significant conclusion? I don't think so.

[Norsefire]

Well norse, as far as the idea that the universe had or did not have an intelligence behind it's origin (if it even had an origin), that is pure metaphysics in my book and remains a cocktail party chit-chat topic. My santa argument applies to conventional religions. Sorry I wen't down that path again.

Of course, I agree that religions generally have no basis beyond their actual core concept of intelligence. There is no basis for knowing what these gods look like, how they think, what they want, etc, but there is basis enough to suggest the possibility of their existence, I think, as being a viable explanation. By gods, remember I mean influential intelligent entities.

You should check out my other thread titled, "What is a god?" in this same subforum :)

However, the point is, our universe, if it had a beginning, either had to have been created (as by an intelligence) or was not created (was not intentionally caused to be); as of now, they both remain viable possibilities but we really shouldn't lean either way.

[Norsefire]

Isn't this axiomatic though? Is this really a significant conclusion? I don't think so.

Of course it is significant, at least enough to give credit to the idea of gods, because we know that the forces of influence are intelligence or "nature"

[superluminal]

...as of now, they both remain viable possibilities but we really shouldn't lean either way.

Not sure I agree with that. I would say that all indications so far are that the universe just is. Leaning to the "natural" process model is a quite rewarding approach, as it leads to some pretty amazing insights. Leaning the other way would leave you... where?

[superluminal]

Of course it is significant, at least enough to give credit to the idea of gods, because we know that the forces of influence are intelligence or "nature"

All I meant was that given a binary choice, concluding that one of them must be true, is axiomatic and not significant in a technical sense. As in "The solution to this differential equation is trivial" or not.

[SkinWalker]

The premise is quite simple: intelligence can create complexity and is influential; our world is complex and there are forces of influence. There is either intelligence or nature, thus the only possiblities are intelligence or nature behind it.

What is your definition of complexity?

[Norsefire]

Not sure I agree with that. I would say that all indications so far are that the universe just is. Leaning to the "natural" process model is a quite rewarding approach, as it leads to some pretty amazing insights. Leaning the other way would leave you... where? "Just is" makes no sense; it's impossible.

Leaning to the "natural" process model would give nothing more than the other way; besides, do we find answers for what they are or for what we want them to be?

All I meant was that given a binary choice, concluding that one of them must be true, is axiomatic and not significant in a technical sense. As in "The solution to this differential equation is trivial" or not. We can narrow it down at least; the point is simple: the gods concept is valid, and shouldn't be dismissed.

What is your definition of complexity?
An interesting question.

[superluminal]

"Just is" makes no sense; it's impossible.

Really? I find it makes perfect sense and is the only rational conclusion mo matter the way you "lean" on the subject. If the universe was not created, then it just is. It has no point of origin. Temporally, it just is. It goes through states (hot/dense, cool/dilute).

If you posit an intelligence behind it - a god - you always beg the question of gods creation and usually arrive at the exact same point as stated above. Theists like to call it a "first cause" which is just another way of saying just is.

[Norsefire]

Really? I find it makes perfect sense and is the only rational conclusion mo matter the way you "lean" on the subject. If the universe was not created, then it just is. It has no point of origin. Temporally, it just is. It goes through states (hot/dense, cool/dilute).

If you posit an intelligence behind it - a god - you always beg the question of gods creation and usually arrive at the exact same point as stated above. Theists like to call it a "first cause" which is just another way of saying just is.

The universe can have had a beginning, but simply this beginning might not have had an intelligent driving force behind it. Therefore it is possible the universe begin "naturally' but without intelligent causation

However, "just is" is impossible.

If we do propose an intelligent force of causation behind the universe, we don't necessarily have to answer the question of origin; remember, time began with the big bang, and might not have existed before then. Thus, chronological order would be unnecessary.

[SkinWalker]

I've seen varied definitions in this sort of context and they're usually regarding energy, order, quantity of particles, etc. But "complexity" is a value judgment which seems difficult to utilize unless you have something to compare it to.

How, then, does one compare a universe to... what, precisely? We would need something outside that universe.

Most arguments from complexity rely on intuitive definitions of "complex," but if we use that you end up with an infinite regression. For instance, one such complexity argument is:


The universe is complex.
Only something more complex (intelligent) can create something complex.
Therefore, the universe was created by an intelligence more complex than the universe.
Therefore, god exists.


But, for that to be true:


God is complex.
Only something more complex (intelligent) can create something complex.
Therefore, god was created by an intelligence more complex than the god.
Therefore, an Uber-god exists.


An Uber-god is complex...


It definitely makes you think, regardless of which side of the argument you want to align with.

[Norsefire]

SkinWalker, that's assuming chronological order is necessary. It might be the case in our universe, but might not be the cause outside, if there is an outside, where time might not exist. Remember, time began with the big bang (or so some scientists think)

[superluminal]

However, "just is" is impossible.

You keep saying this. Please explain why it's impossible that the universe is temporally infinite, so to speak.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Time did not begin with the big bang. As long as anything exists, there is time.
I see no indication either way as to whether our universe was created by some higher power/intelligence. BTW, superior power doesn't necessarily mean superior intelligence or even superior knowledge. Posing the possibility of some "superior" being says nothing else about it. We don't know it's wise or sane or kind or consistent or honest. It could've caused the big bang then went off & never gave it a 2nd thought. It may be about to pour us down the drain. It may be having a ball playing with us.
It's good to consider possibilities. I wouldn't mind if everyone on Earth admitted the possibilities. But that's it. There's nowhere to go from there.
More advanced aliens are not gods. Having more power, knowledge, intelligence or technology does not make beings gods. BTW, more advanced technology doesn't necessarily mean more intelligent.

[spidergoat]

Norsefire, that's the whole point. Since the celestial teapot and God have the same amount of evidence, the adsurdity of one can logically be applied to the other. The idea of God is just as absurd, unsupported, illogical, and not following from observed data, that He might as well be a whale falling from 10,000 feet directly above you. In other words, not 100% impossible, but so unlikely as to be beyond serious consideration.

[Norsefire]

You keep saying this. Please explain why it's impossible that the universe is temporally infinite, so to speak.
Time cannot be infinite, as there is always something prior. However, as with the concept of a creator, if time began with our universe, it might not be necessary for there to be something prior to this creator.
Time did not begin with the big bang. As long as anything exists, there is time. I'm loving your evidence
I see no indication either way as to whether our universe was created by some higher power/intelligence.
Of course, it is only a suggestion; there is no indication for anything as of yet, creator or otherwise
BTW, superior power doesn't necessarily mean superior intelligence or even superior knowledge. Posing the possibility of some "superior" being says nothing else about it. We don't know it's wise or sane or kind or consistent or honest. How could we come to those conclusions? Intelligence is the only supposition we can make based off we what know and understand
It could've caused the big bang then went off & never gave it a 2nd thought. It may be about to pour us down the drain. It may be having a ball playing with us That's all irrelevant and there is no basis for that

The only thing we can suppose is intelligence. We can't really suppose anything further as there is no grounds for it

It's good to consider possibilities. I wouldn't mind if everyone on Earth admitted the possibilities. But that's it. There's nowhere to go from there. Nor is there anywhere to go from supposing a "natural" beginning or supposing that our universe is infinite; it's for the sake of knowledge, narrowing the choices down.
More advanced aliens are not gods.
What makes a god?
Norsefire, that's the whole point. Since the celestial teapot and God have the same amount of evidence, the adsurdity of one can logically be applied to the other. Is absurdity decided purely on evidence or lack of it, or is there another factor? The factor of basis, based on observation and logical inference.
The idea of God is just as absurd, unsupported, illogical, and not following from observed data If you truly fail to see why the concept of a god is not absurd, or illogical, then this discussion is pointless.

Again, the intelligence-complexity observation does give credit to the god supposition. I'm not going to go into detail if you can't comprehend that. We know intelligence can cause things, therefore it always remains a serious possibility that intelligence caused our universe. How is that ridiculous?
that He might as well be a whale falling from 10,000 feet directly above you. In other words, not 100% impossible, but so unlikely as to be beyond serious consideration.
I disagree....intelligence is not so unlikely as to be beyond consideration.

[superluminal]

Time cannot be infinite, as there is always something prior. However, as with the concept of a creator, if time began with our universe, it might not be necessary for there to be something prior to this creator.
This makes zero sense to me.

Time is not something that begins or ends. It is a measure of duration between events. Things progress from one state to another and our concept of time as something that "passes" or "flows" is purely a mental construct/illusion.

So, it is entirely likely that the universe just is, and that events simply occurr, temporally unbounded. It's dosen't seem like such a hard concept to me.

[Norsefire]

The problem is we can always ask "what before that?" and we have to come to a beginning somewhere

[Michael]

This is what separates the concepts; sure, they both have no real evidence. However, one has logical basis, whereas the other has none whatsoever (santa)Then of course the most logical would be Scientology. Because we humans exist, therefor we know that it is possible other aliens could also exist. And they might be more advanced than us and one of them may be an Over Lord named Xenu.

So, Scientology trumps monotheism in this respect,

All hail Xenu!
M

[Norsefire]

Then of course the most logical would be Scientology. Because we humans exist, therefor we know that it is possible other aliens could also exist. Sure, why not?

However scientology goes further and makes claims not supported by any sort of underlying observation
And they might be more advanced than us
Sure
and one of them may be an Over Lord named Xenu. What leads you to this conclusion?

[shaman_]

There’s been a few theists in this forum who try very hard to avoid understanding the point of the Santa or FSM analogy. It isn’t an ‘argument against god’.

It is merely the drawing of a parallel to illustrate to theists the position that they are defending.

They aren't comparable.

They most certainly are comparable. All are possible but have no supporting evidence. To believe in them requires faith. The Santa one is also interesting because, as far as a child is concerned, there is hard evidence for his existence. The Nintento Wii didn’t just appear under the tree on Christmas morning by itself. The child applying logic to the best of their ability, just as you are, would come to the conclusion that Santa exists.

Norsefire your argument (extremely) simplified seems to be that due to your bias you see Yahweh (or whatever powerful entity) as much more likely so it’s not a fair comparison. One being more likely, or as you say a real possibility as opposed to a normal possibility doesn’t stop it from being a valid analogy.

[Michael]

Scientology: The Video Channel (http://www.scientology.org/index.html?gclid=CLH25qTe_5UCFQ0xawod9FWGFA)

[Norsefire]

There’s been a few theists in this forum who try very hard to avoid understanding the point of the Santa or FSM analogy. It isn’t an ‘argument against god’.

It is merely the drawing of a parallel to illustrate to theists the position that they are defending. I understand, but my point is that they aren't the same. The FSM falls under the god concept, which is an entire concept on its own, of intelligence, and Santa has no underlying observation behind it.



They most certainly are comparable. All are possible but have no supporting evidence. To believe in them requires faith. The Santa one is also interesting because, as far as a child is concerned, there is hard evidence for his existence. The Nintento Wii didn’t just appear under the tree on Christmas morning by itself. The child applying logic to the best of their ability, just as you are, would come to the conclusion that Santa exists. Wrong. The child could, after observing that presents appear, come to several conclusions, but Santa would not be one of them unless he was told about what Santa was. More than likely, he may conclude that his parents gave him the gifts, or that someone did.

You are also making a simple mistake: you assume I am speaking of a specific religion with specific religious details. I am not. I am merely speaking of the concept that our universe was created by an intelligence

And is that a ridiculous concept? Of course not! We Humans are perfect proof that intelligence is possible, and that intelligence can be influential. That, alone, coupled with the fact that everything is either intelligent or not, makes it necessary to give serious consideration to the possibility that our universe was intelligently created. Why dismiss such a very real possibility? It'd be foolish and pointless.

[Roman]

Is absurdity decided purely on evidence or lack of it, or is there another factor? The factor of basis, based on observation and logical inference.

Preconception is not a very valid scientific investigative method when your preconceptions are continuously shown wrong.

Ie, you presume an anthropomorphic universe, but that's because of the way your brain works; not the evidence.

You pay too much attention to your feelings.

[superluminal]

The problem is we can always ask "what before that?" and we have to come to a beginning somewhere
Negative. This is where the limits of your intuition and imagination are showing. There is nothing inconsistent with the universe existing without origin. It's more problematic to postulate a "beginning" because it begs the question of what or how it was created, which assumes a "before".

No, the universe just is. No beginning, no end, just ever changing states. Anything else is a logically contradictory view. Unless you think that "nothingness" spawned the universe? From what? If it was something, then what spawned that? Ad infinitum...

[Roman]

Norse, your argument is not about reason- it's about justifying your feelings. That's all it is.

[Norsefire]

Preconception is not a very valid scientific investigative method when your preconceptions are continuously shown wrong. How are they shown "wrong"? We don't have a clue how the universe originated, so why dismiss the possibilities? Especially when they are viable?

Negative. This is where the limits of your intuition and imagination are showing. There is nothing inconsistent with the universe existing without origin. It's more problematic to postulate a "beginning" because it begs the question of what or how it was created, which assumes a "before". If it "always was", we can continuously go back in time, and therefore there had to have been a time before that and before that, at any points in time we choose; eventually we require origins.



Norse, your argument is not about reason- it's about justifying your feelings. That's all it is.
What feelings?

The reasoning is quite simple; either our universe was created by an intelligence or was some accident of nature. What else is there?

And if those two are the only two, why dismiss one of them out of hand for no reason when it has a very real chance of being the case?

[superluminal]

...eventually we require origins.

No, I disagree. This sticking point seems more to be a lack of imagination on your part than a logical impossibility. In fact, it seems like a logical requirement to me.

Again, if you find the "beginning" of the cosmos, what spawned that?

[Norsefire]

No, I disagree. This sticking point seems more to be a lack of imagination on your part than a logical impossibility. In fact, it seems like a logical requirement to me.

Again, if you find the "beginning" of the cosmos, what spawned that?

If we do find a beginning to the cosmos, we don't necessarily need to answer that question; remember, time might have began with OUR universe and therefore anything before might not require chronoligical order, or might have different mechanics

Regardless, I don't think our universe "always was" because we can always keep going back and back and back, and eventually we have to arrive at a point, which is the beginning. And I don't believe that our universe is the only universe.

[superluminal]

We agree to disagree then.

[Norsefire]

We agree to disagree then.

I hope you do realize, though, why it is necessary to give consideration to the intelligence hypothesis.

[superluminal]

I hope you do realize, though, why it is necessary to give consideration to the intelligence hypothesis.
I give it what I think it deserves - occasional fun speculation, nothing more.

[Norsefire]

I give it what I think it deserves - occasional fun speculation, nothing more.

Why only "occasional fun speculation?"

I've already explained the reasoning behind it; any scientific mind wouldn't dismiss viable ideas without a good reason. We have good reason to suppose an intelligence behind the origins of our universe purely because we know intelligence is influential, and because we know our universe, if it had an origin, was either created or was an "accident". Therefore we must entertain the three possibilities equally:

1) intelligent causation
2) An "accident"
3) It always was

[Michael]

One could say that there was a Goddess and She and her sister did create reality and then they both *poof* disappeared into nothingness....


The fact is there is no reason for believing in Gods and Goddesses, not now a days anyway.

[superluminal]

Why only "occasional fun speculation?"

I've already explained the reasoning behind it; any scientific mind wouldn't dismiss viable ideas without a good reason. We have good reason to suppose an intelligence behind the origins of our universe purely because...
I deem your logic to be faulty here, and full of emotional bias.

I never said I dismiss the idea. I just give it a very low likelyhood based on what we currently know about the universe. Your reasoning that "We have good reason to suppose an intelligence behind the origins of our universe purely because we know intelligence is influential" to be spurious at best.

Just because I know that intelligence can influence the environment dosen't mean that I consider the amazing structural organization of many crystalline structures to be even remotely caused by intelligence.

[shaman_]

I understand, but my point is that they aren't the same. The FSM falls under the god concept, which is an entire concept on its own, of intelligence, and Santa has no underlying observation behind it. Yes it does. Presents appear under everyone’s tree on Christmas morning. To a child it is logical and as you would say, not a ridiculous concept. It is only your bias that won’t allow you to see the relevant similarities.


Wrong. The child could, after observing that presents appear, come to several conclusions, but Santa would not be one of them unless he was told about what Santa was. More than likely, he may conclude that his parents gave him the gifts, or that someone did. No in this particular example the child has asked his family and friends and they were not responsible. It is a very logical and likely conclusion. Even if the child had never had Santa described to them they would, after being told that his parent’s didn’t put them there, imagine an intelligent and generous entity which doesn’t look anything like Santa. Just as someone who had never heard of god might imagine an intelligent creator who doesn’t have a white beard. No different.



You are also making a simple mistake: you assume I am speaking of a specific religion with specific religious details. I am not. I am merely speaking of the concept that our universe was created by an intelligenceFirstly, I edited my post after re-reading because I knew you would say that. Secondly if this happens it is because you start threads referring to god, which is generally accepted to mean the god of the abrahamic religions. I’m pretty sure I read that you were a Xtian again. Thirdly, it doesn’t change my point so don’t get too hung up on it.


And is that a ridiculous concept? Of course not! We Humans are perfect proof that intelligence is possible, and that intelligence can be influential. That, alone, coupled with the fact that everything is either intelligent or not, makes it necessary to give serious consideration to the possibility that our universe was intelligently created. Why dismiss such a very real possibility? It'd be foolish and pointless.I didn’t say it was ridiculous and I didn’t dismiss anything. Don’t be so eager to repeat the same arguments over again that you don’t read other people’s posts.

It is possible as are teapots and Santa. That is the point. Don’t think that saying it’s a real possibility or saying is needs serious consideration somehow makes up for the complete lack of evidence. It doesn’t and it doesn't make the teapot analogy invalid.

[Norsefire]

The fact is there is no reason for believing in Gods and Goddesses, not now a days anyway.
Who is speaking of gods and goddesses with sisters? I certainly am not. I'm speaking of intelligence

And the fact is, we have no clue, so we need to try to reason out the possibilities
I deem your logic to be faulty here, and full of emotional bias.

I never said I dismiss the idea. I just give it a very low likelyhood based on what we currently know about the universe Yet, that it wasn't caused by intelligence has a higher likelihood? I don't think we can really determine likeliness at this time, in terms of what is more likely than the other. They all make sense and all have a mechanic, so how can we rule out one over the other?
Just because I know that intelligence can influence the environment dosen't mean that I consider the amazing structural organization of many crystalline structures to be even remotely caused by intelligence.
However, if you travelled to a far off planet and found an extremely complex architectural structure, could you not suppose intelligence? And would it be unreasonable to do so?

[superluminal]

I have hit a wall here. I'm out of logic and reason.

[Norsefire]

I have hit a wall here. I'm out of logic and reason.

Address my last point.


After examining my own reasoning, I cannot fathom how it is at all sensible to dismiss totally viable ideas when you have not a clue over the actual nature of things and when the gap already exists.

With these "gods", there is already something which requires explanation, and intelligence always is an explanation and shouldn't be ruled out.

The reason you do not need to give consideration to santa is because there is nothing requiring answering, nor is there any logical inference you can make about it. We have no reason to suggest the existence of a giant celestial teapot and we have no observation or eventuality which requires explanation where a giant celestial teapot could come into play

As with the origin of the universe, we do have an event that requires explanation, and intelligence is a viable explanation. As such, why should it be dismissed or not be given serious consideration, when indeed it is a serious proposal that fits?

[superluminal]

Address my last point.

After examining my own reasoning, I cannot fathom how it is at all sensible to dismiss totally viable ideas when you have not a clue over the actual nature of things and when the gap already exists.


No. Read my last post where I said I don't completely dismiss the idea.

With these "gods", there is already something which requires explanation, and intelligence always is an explanation and shouldn't be ruled out.
Which "gods"?


As with the origin of the universe, we do have an event that requires explanation, and intelligence is a viable explanation. As such, why should it be dismissed or not be given serious consideration, when indeed it is a serious proposal that fits?
1) IMO Intelligence behind the creation of the universe is not a serious or viable consideration. It borders on the absurd, IMO. You cannot sway me on this point except with direct evidence that precludes a natural explanation.

2) Fits what? You have presupposed the one condition that might even remotely qualify the idea that there is intelligence involved, namely that the univers was "created". I see no reason to think the universe had an ultimate origin. As I've said, it seems illogical to suppose such a thing, and I've thoroughly explained why.

[Roman]

Has any scientific investigation yielded meaningful results when one speculates that "an intelligent being did it"? As far as I know, that has always been met with disaster.

[superluminal]

Has any scientific investigation yielded meaningful results when one speculates that "an intelligent being did it"? As far as I know, that has always been met with disaster.
That's because such a "theory" usually makes no testable predictions, or if it does (like some claims in the bible) they fail miserably and rediculously.

[Roman]

I'm not really sure why the origin of the universe can have only two causitive agents.

Couldn't an accident of nature accidentally done it intelligently, or maybe an accidental act of an intelligent agent?

Or maybe a proto-Chris Farley, gibbering about in the Void, pseudopodia flailing, dreamt this all into being?

Why are any of these less likely? Because Norsefire feels like they aren't?

[Medicine*Woman]

One could say that there was a Goddess and She and her sister did create reality and then they both *poof* disappeared into nothingness....

The fact is there is no reason for believing in Gods and Goddesses, not now a days anyway.
**************
M*W: That's probably as close to any god as you're going to get!

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Anything claimed to be evidence of gods can easily be claimed as evidence of something else.

[Cellar_Door]

Often I see the argument, " We don't know if there is a god, sure, but we also don't know if santa clause exists." Or perhaps, "and we also don't know if a giant celestial teapot exists"

A textbook strawman argument.

[spidergoat]

Again, the intelligence-complexity observation does give credit to the god supposition. I'm not going to go into detail if you can't comprehend that. We know intelligence can cause things, therefore it always remains a serious possibility that intelligence caused our universe. ...

Not any more. Intelligence can create a certain kind of complexity, but it isn't the only way complexity can occur. We now know that the complexity found in life can come about with no intelligent intervention at all. In fact, things that are designed have very different qualities than things that acheive their complexity through evolution. We can study the qualities of complex things and determine if they were designed or simply designoid. Our eyes, for instance, would not have been designed that way if it were the product of intelligence. The blood vessals are in front of the light sensing cells. Other creatures have different solutions. This solution must have come about due to being adapted from a previous incarnation. We find similar examples throughout the animal and plant kingdoms. Furthermore, the only examples of intelligence making complex things occurs at the end of a long process of evolution. If all time were compressed to a year, intelligence-guided complexity only happened at the last second of the last day, and even then it cannot compare to the smallest life form. Intelligence is no longer a reasonable explanation for the complexity of life.

[Aannuunnaakkii]

What is your definition of complexity?

Infinity

[Norsefire]

Not any more. Intelligence can create a certain kind of complexity, but it isn't the only way complexity can occur. We now know that the complexity found in life can come about with no intelligent intervention at all. In fact, things that are designed have very different qualities than things that acheive their complexity through evolution. We can study the qualities of complex things and determine if they were designed or simply designoid. Our eyes, for instance, would not have been designed that way if it were the product of intelligence. The blood vessals are in front of the light sensing cells. Other creatures have different solutions. This solution must have come about due to being adapted from a previous incarnation. We find similar examples throughout the animal and plant kingdoms. Furthermore, the only examples of intelligence making complex things occurs at the end of a long process of evolution. If all time were compressed to a year, intelligence-guided complexity only happened at the last second of the last day, and even then it cannot compare to the smallest life form. Intelligence is no longer a reasonable explanation for the complexity of life.

Who's talking about the origin of Man here? I'm talking about the origin of the universe. I can agree with you now that evolution seems to have been how we got to be at the stage we are, but there's always the question of whether or not it was guided. Evolution is a process, not a cause, right?

We're speaking of the origin of the universe, and intelligence isn't a ridiculous "beyond consideration" explanation. That doesn't mean it's correct but it can't be dismissed.

[spidergoat]

But we discovered physics. Physics explains the universe better than an intelligent agent, which itself would still need to be explained.

[Norsefire]

But we discovered physics. Physics explains the universe better than an intelligent agent, which itself would still need to be explained.

What do you mean "physics explains the universe better than an intelligent agent..."

Of course there are the laws of physics; what does that have to do with anything? I'm merely questioning the origin of our universe

An intelligent agent wouldn't need to be explained; in what way would it need to be explained? Its origin? If time does not exist outside of our universe, origins are unnecessary

The question is where did our universe, and the laws of physics, come from? How did they come to be?

Nobody is questioning physics.