Thus, it has always been

[mouse]

I'm not going to waste time showing that the universe is finely tuned. It is so well-documented and so well known that anyone interested in science should be aware it.

It may be that if the gravitational force was just a tad bit weaker, our whole existence would have never came to be.

It, however, may very well be that, in such a case, other beings could have pondered that same question. Beings whose structure may be entirely unimaginable, as our brain is completely adapted to the rules of our universe. On the other hand, it also may very well be that in that universe there would be no life at all. In short, I think that we don't know what the potential of an universe with slightly different rules might be.

That alone could give us some hesitation in speculating that the particular favourable properties of our universe, for our own existence, must have been the result of an intelligent effort. If anything, it makes it the situation rather more complicated: why introduce an extra intelligence of a high degree of complexity, if it's just not necessary.

Self-existent, however, is not illogical. And that's the problem: how do you get order, consciousness and the like unless it was already present in some state, potential or otherwise?

If your argument is that the potential for intelligent life to develop has to be there, then I will agree with you. The origin of that potential can be as mundane as the laws and constants our universe just happens to abide by.

The notion that God is a self-differentiating One in which consciousness is predominant is a lot older than 19th century science and allowable in 20th century science.

Nature seems to work in the opposite direction: start with little building blocks and, given time and selective pressure, you may end up with something more complex. For me, it seems therefore odd to assume that it happened, more or less, the other way around.

 

[SnakeLord]

Nothing here or anywhere else in the Sciforum has even come even close to giving me one. Most of what I’ve seen is what one might expect from ill-informed teenyboppers (like asking for proof that the universe is finely tuned or the insisting that God is an emergent property)

A couple of things..

1) Nobody here has asked you for "proof" of anything. Instead they have continued to ask you to cite some examples - which is not much to ask of a 'self declared' refined adult such as yourself. You consistently fail to do so, instead reeling off ad hom as a substitute for your failures.

2) Seemingly 'e-penis' is your thing. If you want we could just compare qualifications and get it over with.

I would ask that you refrain from your pointless ad-homs. That which you accuse others of is exactly how you happen to portray yourself with everything you write. You clearly don't understand what is asked of you, what a discussion is all about or the polite way to behave in front of other people. That is quite typical for an "ill-informed teenybopper".

One last time: Please show something to support your claim that the universe is "finely tuned". Any example will do.

 

[Godless]

If any probability in the quantum sea is a statistical certainty, the state prior to the Big Bang is the sufficient cause of the Big Bang itself.

Oh! yes, I know, we did this way back, you weren't here. Sorry you missed it, the BBT is debatable, I'm not going to waste my time here with it, cause we have rehashed this here several times. Just look here:http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51188

Of course, I know your style, your arrogance is apparent, you probably claim I'm loony tunes or what not, but objectively. There is evidence that the BBT is falling apart as type this!

Consciousness and will must have existed in some form from the very beginning

(Against the backdrop of our immense scientific knowledge of the physical world, and the corresponding widespread desire to explain everything ultimately in physical terms, panpsychism has come to seem an implausible view.)http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

Like I said before, consciousness is an evolutionary process of our minds, to reason did not come automatically it was a learned process, our ancestors invented human like consciousness out of chaotic behavior. Break down of the gods..Julian Jaynes theory of consciousness. You really need to take a look at this. http://www.julianjaynes.org/

Oh! I forget, your damn arrogance impedes you!

The aggregate bears all the characteristics of what we call “God.” “The existence of God is intelligible not because it was caused by anything or anyone, but because it flows from his essence.” In him we live, move and have our being. God is not an emergent property.

If then god is not an emergent entity, why should the universe be so? How could an non-emergent entity create anything? why would it need to?

I’ve never just sat back waiting for the world to give me evidence of what is true. This is something I have believed for many years now as the result of being an active participant in my personal evolution longer than many who read this have been alive. It is still being refined. The Integrated Theory of Intelligence, something that has just recently come to my attention, uses current scientific information in a way that serves to validate my own analysis and conclusions while adding to that refinement, and this because even though it doesn’t point to God’s existence as I understand it, it does posit a reasonable description of how my conception of God manifests in the universe.

If you are here, what are you seeking? or are you just trying to compel us to trust your intuitions, and assertions without giving any thought that we just may not believe you? It sounds unique what you are saying, it really does, lots of us here have been at cross roads, were decisions of our world view was changed, but I at least question, and don't give in to just one theory cause it sounds good, or one philosophy or ideology. As shown above panpsychism is been around for quite some time. *One of the first presocratic philosophers of ancient Greece, Thales (c. 624-545 B.C.E.) deployed an analogical argument for the attribution of mind that tends towards panpsychism.* from the link above.

There is no rational reason to dismantle my ship without a compelling reason to do so. Nothing here or anywhere else in the Sciforum has even come even close to giving me one. Most of what I’ve seen is what one might expect from ill-informed teenyboppers (like asking for proof that the universe is finely tuned or the insisting that God is an emergent property). The fact that I made some posts here therefore proves something with which many of you will agree: I’m REALLY pathetic!!!

What ship? Hey every loon has there day, so welcome to sciforums, your arguments here will or will not stand up to scrutiny, however do us a favor, when eve you ranting your rhetoric, at least give some supporting evidence of your claims, or else your arguments will be scrutinised as the rest of the loons we have here! I'll informed teenyboppers? LOL...Must you be looking in the mirror as you type your non-serquitus drivel?

 

[Sarkus]

Most of what I’ve seen is what one might expect from ill-informed teenyboppers...

I would suggest that, unless you know your audience personally, you refrain from such generalisations that do nothing other than expose your gross arrogance and your inability to enter proper debate.

Your arrogance stems from... what, exactly? The fact that you consider yourself older than some others on this site? And of course you know how old everyone else is? Me, for example? Or Godless, or SnakeLord?

Grow up.

(like asking for proof that the universe is finely tuned or the insisting that God is an emergent property).

And I note that you STILL haven't provided any arguments to support this claim of the universe being finely tuned.

Does your statement stem from the "Intelligent Design" stable of thought, perchance?

 

[heliocentric]

(Against the backdrop of our immense scientific knowledge of the physical world, and the corresponding widespread desire to explain everything ultimately in physical terms, panpsychism has come to seem an implausible view.)http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

Like I said before, consciousness is an evolutionary process of our minds, to reason did not come automatically it was a learned process, our ancestors invented human like consciousness out of chaotic behavior. Break down of the gods..Julian Jaynes theory of consciousness. You really need to take a look at this. http://www.julianjaynes.org/

First consciousness isnt a specifically human process/attribute *atall*, second of all i think youre getting dangerously close to being rather dogmatic in stating your opinions on this as fact.
Julian Jaynes remember has alot of critics and as with the bulk of sociological/anthrological study it all boils down to subjective opinion and interpretation.
By all means entertain Bicameral Mind Theory, but just remember it is a theory based entirely in personal opinion.

 

[Godless]

By all means entertain Bicameral Mind Theory, but just remember it is a theory based entirely in personal opinion.

As is "Intergrated theory of Intelligence"

First consciousness isnt a specifically human process/attribute *atall*, second of all i think youre getting dangerously close to being rather dogmatic in stating your opinions on this as fact.

Hellio, perhaps you need to take a look at what I've stated:

I suppose it's all on perspective, while our brains are naturally designed to see order, it's easier for us to determine order in the universe, however it's not entirely true, as shown by some physicists the universe is quite a chaotic place. Consciousness exists in every living species on earth, however only humans can reason

Post#36

Is it not a fact, that every living species on earth has some form of consciousness? Is it not a FACT that only humans in this planet can reason?

Isn't evolution an accepted factual theory? If it is, the mind also had to "evolve" from a primitive survival mode mind, to one that can reason, grasp metaphor concepts, and use those concepts in context.

 

[heliocentric]

Nope, youre right of course, it just came across in that one post as if you were stating an opinion/theory as fact, apolagies since it seems i mis-read you.

 

[Godless]

No problem lad, it gets to be confusing at times when threads go off topic so often