Occam's Razor And Creation

[Carrikature]

What's wrong with that? Besides in any discussion new ideas and thoughts are debated.

There's no debate here. There's you steadfastly ignoring everything anyone else says. As if that weren't bad enough, you blatantly disregard your own logical fallacies. Even worse, you find them amusing. You're not looking for a discussion, you just want to argue your point. You're quickly approaching the point of being nothing more than a .

[seer]

Intelligence, minds, are shown to have emerged from the underlying principle of existence, not vice versa. Intelligence is not a thing in itself that we have any evidence of at all such as we do of that from which it emerged. You can turn this on its head if you like and say that intelligence came first and that the material world came from that, but again the only actual evidence is to the contrary. I believe the evidence as it presents itself, intelligence as an emergent property of the underlying principle, you believe what suits you.

Yes James, but I have no reason to believe that the blind, dumb forces of nature could or did create such a precise, life supporting universe. We know from our own experience that intelligence can create things with precise values and properties. I have no reason to assume that unadied nature (your zero-field) could do such a thing.

You are assuming creation, what the empirical evidence tells us is which, to the best of our knowledge, came first, and that is energy/matter. BTW, the statement "intelligence created intelligence" doesn't make sense.

No Jim, it makes perfect sense. I believe Intelligence (God) created intelligence (humans). You in the end, believe that non-intelligent forces of nature created their opposite - intelligence.

[JimL]

Yes James, but I have no reason to believe that the blind, dumb forces of nature could or did create such a precise, life supporting universe. We know from our own experience that intelligence can create things with precise values and properties. I have no reason to assume that unadied nature (your zero-field) could do such a thing.

First off seer, you should be more precise in what it is that you claim to know. Do you really know from your own experience that intelligence can create things? We often confuse building things with creation, and what you have experience of is the former, i.e. that intelligent beings can build things, not that they can create them.

No Jim, it makes perfect sense. I believe Intelligence (God) created intelligence (humans). You in the end, believe that non-intelligent forces of nature created their opposite - intelligence.

Creating an intelligent being is not the same thing as creating intelligence. You are speaking of intelligence as if it were some existing entity. Intelligence is not a thing in itself, it has no existence.

[seer]

First off seer, you should be more precise in what it is that you claim to know. Do you really know from your own experience that intelligence can create things? We often confuse building things with creation, and what you have experience of is the former, i.e. that intelligent beings can build things, not that they can create them.

Jim you know exactly what I mean by create. We can "build" things with precise values and properties. I have no reason to assume that the unaided, blind, and dumb forces of nature could or did create (or build) such a precise life supporting universe.

Creating an intelligent being is not the same thing as creating intelligence. You are speaking of intelligence as if it were some existing entity. Intelligence is not a thing in itself, it has no existence.

Oh stop Jim, you are arguing semantics. Ok, put it this was - I believe that an Intelligent Being (God) created intelligent beings (us) - like created like. You believe that non-intelligent forces created intelligent beings. These forces created a quality (intelligence) that was not inherent to their nature - they in fact a quality that was foreign to their nature - opposite.

[pancreasman]

Puts on Seer hat:

NONSENSE!

There, refuted.

[seer]

Puts on Seer hat:

NONSENSE!

There, refuted.

You know pancreasman, I do deserve criticism at times, but that was undeserved - concerning this thread. I did not say that Jim's argument was "nonsense" - I made my case and he made his.

[JimL]

Jim you know exactly what I mean by create. We can "build" things with precise values and properties. I have no reason to assume that the unaided, blind, and dumb forces of nature could or did create (or build) such a precise life supporting universe.

We, as intelligent beings can build things, not create them, but build them out of an already existing material, yes, but the blind forces of nature are neither creating or building, in the usual sense of the meaning of those terms. When your toenails grow, would you say that you were building or creating your toenails; or if a wart suddendly appears on your finger did you build or create it? I think you would agree that no, you did not, that it was just the act of nature. Like yourself, the universe is what it is, it doesn't build or create that which comes to be within it, what comes to be comes naturally. What your basic argument is, I believe, is that the universe could not have such a nature in the first place, a nature in which life could evolve unless it were created that way. So then, if that be it, how do you explain the existence of God?

Oh stop Jim, you are arguing semantics. Ok, put it this was - I believe that an Intelligent Being (God) created intelligent beings (us) - like created like. You believe that non-intelligent forces created intelligent beings. These forces created a quality (intelligence) that was not inherent to their nature - they in fact a quality that was foreign to their nature - opposite.

No, I do not believe that anything created or built anything, I believe that existence is eternal and that what you call created things are emergent and natural properties, or outgrowths if you like, like your toenails, belonging to the system as a whole. I don't believe it takes intelligence to create intelligent beings anymore than it takes intelligence to create the exploding stars which gave rise to life. If it did, then the intelligent creator sure wasted an awful lot of universe.

[seer]

We, as intelligent beings can build things, not create them, but build them out of an already existing material, yes, but the blind forces of nature are neither creating or building, in the usual sense of the meaning of those terms. When your toenails grow, would you say that you were building or creating your toenails; or if a wart suddendly appears on your finger did you build or create it? I think you would agree that no, you did not, that it was just the act of nature. Like yourself, the universe is what it is, it doesn't build or create that which comes to be within it, what comes to be comes naturally. What your basic argument is, I believe, is that the universe could not have such a nature in the first place, a nature in which life could evolve unless it were created that way. So then, if that be it, how do you explain the existence of God?

Of course Jim, we have three options - eternal intelligence or eternal energy or eternal intelligent energy. I vote for number three. Yes, it is a faith position - but so are all of them.

No, I do not believe that anything created or built anything, I believe that existence is eternal and that what you call created things are emergent and natural properties, or outgrowths if you like, like your toenails, belonging to the system as a whole. I don't believe it takes intelligence to create intelligent beings anymore than it takes intelligence to create the exploding stars which gave rise to life. If it did, then the intelligent creator sure wasted an awful lot of universe.

Yes Jim, I know that is what you "believe." But we are going over old ground bro, so I will leave you with the last word...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRBSs...eature=related

As ever, peace...

[JimL]

Of course Jim, we have three options - eternal intelligence or eternal energy or eternal intelligent energy. I vote for number three. Yes, it is a faith position - but so are all of them.

I didn't realize that you were a pantheist seer, did you? if your belief is that energy itself is an eternal mind or that it is somehow endowed with intelligence, there would be no distinction between that eternal energy and the temporal things that arise within it. Matter as you know is another form of energy, E=MC2, there is no distinction to be made betwixt the two. Pantheism though is just a word denoting an eternal universe, a universe to which you belong, not as a distinct creation, but as a temporal form. As I'm sure you realize this notion is at odds with the Christian notion of a distinct creator.

Yes Jim, I know that is what you "believe." But we are going over old ground bro, so I will leave you with the last word...

Apparently, if you believe that energy is eternal, then your belief seer is pretty much the same as mine. Imagine that! I'd be very interested if you have an explanation, a way of distinguishing the creator from the created in your professed belief of an eternal intelligent energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRBSs...eature=related

As ever, peace...

Thanks for that, the Moody Blues have always been one of my favorites.

[seer]

Apparently, if you believe that energy is eternal, then your belief seer is pretty much the same as mine. Imagine that! I'd be very interested if you have an explanation, a way of distinguishing the creator from the created in your professed belief of an eternal intelligent energy.

That God, i.e. a personal God is in substance energy. When scripture compares God to "light" it may be telling us more than we realize.

I lean towards a form of Panentheism, though a little different from below:

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that the divine exists (be it a monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, or an eternal cosmic animating force), interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. Panentheism differentiates itself from pantheism, which holds that the divine is synonymous with the universe.[1]

In panentheism, the universe in the first formulation is practically the whole itself. In the second formulation, the universe and the divine are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that 'All is God', panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God.

Thanks for that, the Moody Blues have always been one of my favorites.

They are the best, got me through a lot of uncertain times in the 70s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okGwukZ25NE

[JimL]

That God, i.e. a personal God is in substance energy. When scripture compares God to "light" it may be telling us more than we realize.

A God though can't be defined as a thing "in" an eternal substance, a God can't be defined as a thing whose existence is "in" another, and therefore dependent upon that other for its existence. Extending beyond its parts is not the same as being distinct from them. Panentheism, though it is meant to, makes no more of a distinction between the universe and God than does pantheism. Of course the greater cosmos, or eternal energy, even should it be given the title of God, being the eternal and infinite whole of nature, interpenetrates every part of its nature and extends too, beyond every part. The greater cosmos would obviously interpenetrate, as well as extend beyond, our own particular universe as well as any other possible universes, but they would still be of the same eternal substance. Even in using our own universe as an example, you would have to say that the energy that defines it, interpenetrates you, as well as extends beyond you throughout all of its parts, but there is no distinction to be made between the whole and the parts, they are still one and the same thing, i.e. energy.

I lean towards a form of Panentheism, though a little different from below:

I think then, being that you claim to be Christian, you may be a bit confused. The Christian God is the distinct creator of the universe, not one and the same substance with it.

They are the best, got me through a lot of uncertain times in the 70s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okGwukZ25NE

I just like there sound mostly.

[seer]

A God though can't be defined as a thing "in" an eternal substance, a God can't be defined as a thing whose existence is "in" another, and therefore dependent upon that other for its existence. Extending beyond its parts is not the same as being distinct from them. Panentheism, though it is meant to, makes no more of a distinction between the universe and God than does pantheism. Of course the greater cosmos, or eternal energy, even should it be given the title of God, being the eternal and infinite whole of nature, interpenetrates every part of its nature and extends too, beyond every part. The greater cosmos would obviously interpenetrate, as well as extend beyond, our own particular universe as well as any other possible universes, but they would still be of the same eternal substance. Even in using our own universe as an example, you would have to say that the energy that defines it, interpenetrates you, as well as extends beyond you throughout all of its parts, but there is no distinction to be made between the whole and the parts, they are still one and the same thing, i.e. energy.

No Jim that is not my take at all. First, God is intelligent and moral, with moral preferences - pantheism would generally deny that. Second, God's mind, or personality is local - in other words it is not defused through all energy. I equate this to the human body. The mind is local in the physical brain - my little finger, though controlled by the mind, nevertheless is not intelligent. The little finger is part of the whole, but not an intelligent part. Even though it is made of the same stuff.

So in this sense the mind of God is distinct from non-intelligent, non-moral energy. And He is in complete control of it.

[JimL]

No Jim that is not my take at all. First, God is intelligent and moral, with moral preferences - pantheism would generally deny that. Second, God's mind, or personality is local - in other words it is not defused through all energy. I equate this to the human body. The mind is local in the physical brain - my little finger, though controlled by the mind, nevertheless is not intelligent. The little finger is part of the whole, but not an intelligent part. Even though it is made of the same stuff.

So in this sense the mind of God is distinct from non-intelligent, non-moral energy. And He is in complete control of it.

The further we discuss this the more convoluted, i.e. from the christian perspective, your philosophy seems to get seer. It matters little how you define the parts of an indivisible whole, whether you assign locality to them or not, they would remain still parts of an indivisible whole. If we take your example of the human body, and assume that body to be an eternally existing whole, then whether you define distinctions of locality within it or not, those defined distinctions have only to do with location, or places within the whole, not distinctions from the whole. The mind/brain and the finger in your body analogy, though distinct from one another in place, would still belong to one and the same eternal body. Equating that analogy to eternal energy, which you identify with God, it doesn't matter if you localize within that energy certain parts of it, such as a mind here, and whatever other attributes you assign to it elsewhere, they, all of the parts, nevertheless would belong to the same eternal substance. That is pantheism, or panentheism if you like. The latter may imply intelligence, whereas the former does not, but they would both be creating, or better yet, re-forming, their own body, not creating ex nihilo a distinct body.

[seer]

The further we discuss this the more convoluted, i.e. from the christian perspective, your philosophy seems to get seer. It matters little how you define the parts of an indivisible whole, whether you assign locality to them or not, they would remain still parts of an indivisible whole. If we take your example of the human body, and assume that body to be an eternally existing whole, then whether you define distinctions of locality within it or not, those defined distinctions have only to do with location, or places within the whole, not distinctions from the whole. The mind/brain and the finger in your body analogy, though distinct from one another in place, would still belong to one and the same eternal body. Equating that analogy to eternal energy, which you identify with God, it doesn't matter if you localize within that energy certain parts of it, such as a mind here, and whatever other attributes you assign to it elsewhere, they, all of the parts, nevertheless would belong to the same eternal substance. That is pantheism, or panentheism if you like. The latter may imply intelligence, whereas the former does not, but they would both be creating, or better yet, re-forming, their own body, not creating ex nihilo a distinct body.

Jim, what I’m suggesting is not convoluted at all. It is pretty straight forward. Even if we are made of the same stuff still there is a distinction. You are made of the same energy as a rock – so are you and the rock exactly the same, there is no distinction? There is intelligent energy and non-intelligent energy. My point in all this is this, even if energy is eternal it would not necessarily negate the need for an intelligent agent to form energy into the precise, life supporting universe we see today.

[JimL]

Jim, what I’m suggesting is not convoluted at all. It is pretty straight forward. Even if we are made of the same stuff still there is a distinction. You are made of the same energy as a rock – so are you and the rock exactly the same, there is no distinction? There is intelligent energy and non-intelligent energy. My point in all this is this, even if energy is eternal it would not necessarily negate the need for an intelligent agent to form energy into the precise, life supporting universe we see today.

Even though there is a percieved distinction between energy and matter, they are still one and the same thing seer. That is not the Christian definition of the distinction between God the creator and the created. The Christian distinction is a real distinction, in christianity God is not the eternal universe from out of which emanates temporal forms, he is completely distinct from the universe and creator ex nihilo of it. What you are suggesting now is pantheism, or panentheism if you like, wherein God is synonomous with his creation.