Jump to content


Photo

Argument Based On Rationality

burden of proof naturalism

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
34 replies to this topic

#21 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 April 2012 - 03:51 AM


One part of your response really caught my attention. In this post, I am pausing for a minute and asking an honest question about the rules of this forum. I was not sure whether to post it here or start a new topic. If I should have started a new topic, I apologize in advance.

Three things:

The rules of this forum are actually as concise and succinct as any forum out there. They are not hard to follow, but they are strictly enforced, and it doesn’t matter what worldview you hail from if you consistently run afoul of them.

It doesn’t matter IF you ask them within this thread or start a new thread, if you cannot adhere to the forum rules, you will cause yourself problems.

Absolutely NO ONE gets in trouble for being honest in the forum, as long as they are honest with themselves as well.


The name “God” CAN INDEED be synonymous with the name “Necessary Being”, or even “Rational Law Giver” in the conclusion.


This statement really surprised me. I have taken Logic 101, and I have spent a not insignificant amount of time looking through logical proofs of God's existence. I have never heard anyone say that "God" is synonymous with "Necessary, Rational Being".


And here is one of the major problem you are having Spork, and you are either doing it intentionally (in which case you are being dishonest with the members of this forum AND yourself), or you are doing it from ignorance (a type of willful ignorance, because I have had to repeatedly warn you about it):

You claim to have taken Logic 101, but you continue to misrepresent what I said.

What I said was – “The NAME “God” CAN INDEED be synonymous with the NAME “Necessary Being”, or even “Rational Law Giver” in the conclusion.”

What you CLAIM I said was – “God is synonymous with "Necessary, Rational Being".

Do you see what is wrong with this picture? By removing one word from what I DID say, you changed the entire context of what I DID say, in order to make your argument sound good!

First question – What forum rules did you break here?

Second Question – Is your misrepresentation of my statement an honest or dishonest tactic?

Third question – If you have taken Logic 101, what does your above offence show that you learned from that class?

Last question – If your premise is fallacious, what does that say about your conclusion?


Rather, every definition I have heard has classified God as a very special subset of Necessary, Rational Beings. In fact, until today, if I had heard anyone claim that the two terms were synonymous, I would have labeled them a hardcore deist. Treating the two terms as synonymous changes everything, to the point that I am not even sure I disagree with your proofs anymore. Under this definition, I can see how several of my arguments stop being valid. I do not know how much unproductive bickering could have been avoided had I known exactly what you meant by "God", but I am sure it would have been a lot. And until the most recent post, you never explicitly told me that you were treating "God" and "Necessary, Rational Being" as synonyms.



Once again, since your initial premise is flawed, therefore your entire discourse above is moot.


When I tried to take a step back and make sure we were on the same page on post 16, this is exactly the kind of confusion that I was trying to do away with, but you accused me of trolling and intentionally stalling the debate.



And you have proven my point by continuing to ignore your misrepresentation of my statements, and your basic use of fallacious logic.

Further, I gave you a chance to support your “alternative argument” bay asking you DIRECT QUESTIONS that, had you honestly answered them, you would realize the folly of your fallacious use of logic:

One – Is this your evidence?
Two – Can you then explain how a “basic law of nature” can CREATE anything?
Three – Can you please explain how a “Law” can BE without a “Law Giver”?
Oh, and by the way, use actual FACTS, not the mere opinions you’ve been using thus far.

I further defined WHY your analogy fails:

“You see your illogic fails because a “Law” can be “cause”, but a “Law” cannot be a “causer”. (GO back to my post #9, and provide how a “Law” can be a “Necessary Being”). A “Law” requires a “Law Giver”. Without a “Law Giver” a “Law” cannot exist.”

Until, and ONLY until, you reconcile your fallacious logic; the entire statement below is moot.”

I then gave you a stern warning:

I would suggest you not even post in this thread again until you have done so.

Which you summarily ignored! (Which Begs the Question; If you actually HAD the answers, why did you NOT answer them and provide support for your hypothesis? This is what the honest debator would have done!)


When I made points that were valid under every definition of "God" I had ever heard before today, you accused me of making baseless assertions and raising red herrings. In short, your worldview and definitions are very different from mine, and I can make an argument in good faith that is valid by my definitions but fallacious by yours. So my question is: If I want to make a post that I know you will disagree with, how can I know in advance whether it will count as fair debate or bannable time-wasting?


Once again, since your initial premise is flawed, therefore your entire discourse above is moot.

Further, you totally failed to support your premise, even AFTER I provided you with numerous opportunities to do so.

And to make things worse on yourself, I gave you three questions to answer about your hypothesis, and warned you not to reply until you did so, and you didn’t even attempt to reply with answers to the questions!


And don't say that I should only post valid arguments rather than unsupported opinions, because the arguments I made were valid according to every definition of God I had ever heard until you gave me a new definition and threatened to ban me in the same post.



Once again, you misrepresented what I said, then you attempted to base your entire argument on your fallacious misrepresentation! And now you are complaining that you could be banned for breaking forum rules?

If not anything else, this will be a good example on how some complain about forum moderating in order to cover for previous forum rules violations.

And, finally; NO your arguments were NOT valid. And they were invalid for MANY reasons, not the least of which is the fact that you misrepresented my words in order to support your argument.


In particular, your last post made some good points about my "law of nature" alternative.


No, in fact, you did not… As I provided THREE question that totally destroy your hypothesis, and you TOTALLY failed to respond to those questions. Now, I have some very good ideas why you side-stepped those questions, but at this point it doesn’t matter, because other viewers of this thread can answer those questions, and invalidate your entire hypothesis with said answers.


I have what I think are some good responses, and I want to present them in a good faith effort to foster productive discussion. Given the current state of things, I probably won't post them, because I have no idea whether you will consider them valid arguments. Is there a reliable way for me to know what counts as a valid argument, even though I don't always know in advance what definitions and assumptions you are working with? If there is not a reliable way, I will not clutter up this thread any more, and I will pick my debates more carefully from now on. But I think the question we are discussing is an interesting one, so at least from my perspective, that would be a shame.



If you HAD good responses, you would have submitted them already Spork. Instead, you chose to do everything BUT provide them.

#22 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 22 April 2012 - 12:45 PM

Even providing unsound arguments would have been more productive...because at least then Ron could have shown you where you erred!

#23 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 April 2012 - 01:27 PM

What really amazed me was that he was attempting to submit a "basic law of nature" as the creator of the universe, life, and intellegence!

#24 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 22 April 2012 - 02:04 PM

What really amazed me was that he was attempting to submit a "basic law of nature" as the creator of the universe, life, and intellegence!


Whatever this "basic law of nature" is that he posits, the requirements are that it establishes, enforces AND defies all of the natural laws that we observe all the time; the laws of thermodynamics, life cannot come from non-life, intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence, etc etc ad nauseum. By definition, this is no law, this is must be an intelligent being with the ability to select laws that are necessary for a universe, life, and intelligence, and enforce them, but also defy them when necessary (preform miracles).

What is this law he is speaking of anyway, the "law of pure dumb luck", the laws themselves evolved? If this were true, we should not expect any natural law to be laws at all, reality should just be a morass of possibility with no possibility to understand it rationally. At the very least, natural laws would be dynamic and unpredictable.

#25 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 April 2012 - 09:33 AM



What really amazed me was that he was attempting to submit a "basic law of nature" as the creator of the universe, life, and intelligence!



Whatever this "basic law of nature" is that he posits, the requirements are that it establishes, enforces AND defies all of the natural laws that we observe all the time; the laws of thermodynamics, life cannot come from non-life, intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence, etc etc ad nauseum. By definition, this is no law, this is must be an intelligent being with the ability to select laws that are necessary for a universe, life, and intelligence, and enforce them, but also defy them when necessary (preform miracles).

What is this law he is speaking of anyway, the "law of pure dumb luck", the laws themselves evolved? If this were true, we should not expect any natural law to be laws at all, reality should just be a morass of possibility with no possibility to understand it rationally. At the very least, natural laws would be dynamic and unpredictable.



It’s the rationality of the irrationalist, but was he actually trying to argue, or was he merely trolling. When you back someone into a corner, and make them answer for their assertions, it isn’t all that hard to see if they have a real argument or not. Sporktastic drug his argument on for a few days, and never provided a speck of evidence or argument.

#26 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 23 April 2012 - 06:43 PM

One part of your response really caught my attention. In this post, I am pausing for a minute and asking an honest question about the rules of this forum. I was not sure whether to post it here or start a new topic. If I should have started a new topic, I apologize in advance.

Translation: I can't take this debate in the direction that I want to so I'm going to complain about the rules that prevent me from using my time wasting tactics.

The rules are very simple and save people a lot of time. That's what they are there for. I would tell you to post somewhere else if you don't like it, but it appears that you and Ron have worked out a great solution. :P

#27 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 24 April 2012 - 09:38 AM

...
As I said, these “Logical Absolutes” are not the product of human minds, because human minds are not absolute. Further, if man were to disappear (i.e. become extinct etc…) logical absolutes would still be true. So, since these logical absolutes are always true everywhere, at all times, and not dependent upon human minds, there MUST must be an “Absolute Transcendent Mind” that authored them. This mind is what Christians call “God”.

I looked at the carm website too, where or in what context do you get human minds are not absolute? at other websites it says 'different, and not absolute'. I don't understand the context/ what you mean... do you have a book on this that I could look at?

Update: looking at the definition of absolute the mind could be not absolute because its not free from imperfection, but this doesn't seem to be what they mean... got it this website explains it better about human minds for me: http://carm.org/scho...solutes-God.htm

" Generally, people will say that we as humans invented the laws of logic. But there is a problem with this explanation. Our minds are different and we often contradict each other. In contrast, logical absolutes are always true. What one person would consider absolutely true and logical might be denied by another. Therefore, it cannot be that logical absolutes are dependent upon human minds." [Lesson 02.03 Logical Absolutes and God http://carm.org/scho...solutes-God.htm ]

#28 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 April 2012 - 11:33 AM



...
As I said, these “Logical Absolutes” are not the product of human minds, because human minds are not absolute. Further, if man were to disappear (i.e. become extinct etc…) logical absolutes would still be true. So, since these logical absolutes are always true everywhere, at all times, and not dependent upon human minds, there MUST must be an “Absolute Transcendent Mind” that authored them. This mind is what Christians call “God”.

I looked at the carm website too, where or in what context do you get human minds are not absolute? at other websites it says 'different, and not absolute'. I don't understand the context/ what you mean... do you have a book on this that I could look at?

Update: looking at the definition of absolute the mind could be not absolute because its not free from imperfection, but this doesn't seem to be what they mean... got it this website explains it better about human minds for me: http://carm.org/scho...solutes-God.htm

"Generally, people will say that we as humans invented the laws of logic. But there is a problem with this explanation. Our minds are different and we often contradict each other. In contrast, logical absolutes are always true. What one person would consider absolutely true and logical might be denied by another. Therefore, it cannot be that logical absolutes are dependent upon human minds." [Lesson 02.03 Logical Absolutes and God http://carm.org/scho...solutes-God.htm ]



Within the context of the conversation, the term “absolute” as it relates to the "Laws of Logic" and the “human mind” are dependant upon whether or not they are “not depending on or qualified by anything else”, and “completely unequivocal and not capable of being viewed as partial or relative”.

The Laws of Logic meet the above criteria, but the human mind does not.

#29 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 03 May 2012 - 04:05 PM

Do these logically make sense? I'm working on this argument based on the rationality of the universe. I'd like to know if it has a name already--I don't expect to be original on this.

My premises are:
1. The universe is rational--it is defined by laws. Even quantum physics can be defined to an extent.
2. 2nd law of thermodynamics... logically, chaos cannot result in order without intervention.
3. Thus, the rationality if the universe demands a rational origin, hence God, who is a rational being, caused the universe.


I like it, but I want to point out some areas that might be an issue:

1. Reality seems rational yes, however modern understanding of quantum mechanics, which you hint at, does suggest an irrational (random) basis for reality. This is illustrated by Bell's inequalities and the related experiments. Just search for Bells Theorem and you'll find what I am talking about.

2. The second law basically states that energy flows in one direction, from higher energy density to lower energy density. This is often stated with the word "heat" replacing energy, but I prefer energy. A lot of people confuse this as a law of increasing entropy, but entropy can indeed decrease with the injection of energy. An example of decreasing entropy: Energy from the sun enters the Earth's systems and causes entropy to decrease as that energy is used by life forms to grow and function, humans for example use that energy do all kinds of amazing things such as building skyscrapers (which is certainly a decrease in entropy). However, at the largest scale, all of reality, yes it is believed that entropy can only increase.

I agree with your conclusion, and it is the primary reason that I believe in God (though I likely have a very different definition of God than most of you)

#30 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 04 May 2012 - 11:00 AM

I like it, but I want to point out some areas that might be an issue:

1. Reality seems rational yes, however modern understanding of quantum mechanics, which you hint at, does suggest an irrational (random) basis for reality. This is illustrated by Bell's inequalities and the related experiments. Just search for Bells Theorem and you'll find what I am talking about.


If the basis of reality is irrational, then what rational basis can we have to expect that anything will be the same today, tomorrow, or the next day? How is this randomness reigned into non-random laws of physics? Just curious of your ideas on this.

#31 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 04 May 2012 - 11:17 AM

If the basis of reality is irrational, then what rational basis can we have to expect that anything will be the same today, tomorrow, or the next day? How is this randomness reigned into non-random laws of physics? Just curious of your ideas on this.


Good question, unfortunately I don't really have an answer. I know the current understanding is that at the lowest level of reality that we can detect that things (energy really) exists as a probability distribution (given by the quantum wave function) rather than as discrete realities. Physicists insist that this is not just a limitation of our measurement ability but a fundamental reality and they have done experiments (such as Bells inequality experiments) that have results that certainly do suggest this.

Now, if this is the case it is still entirely possible to explain the reality that we observe at the macro scale by showing that this probability distribution is highly skewed to support a particular variation, such that the probability of anything else occuring is arbitrarily low. Consider the expected result of an interaction of fundamental particles to occur 99% of the time, in order for some unexpected oddity to propogate up through the levels of scale to something that we can see it would have to beat this 99% chance against it many many times in a row, because we would not witness only one of them at the tiniest of scales unless we were intentionally looking (as in the aforementioned experiments). For example, in order to stick your hand through a solid wall or some other wierd thing like that trillions upon trillions of fundamental particles would all have to beat this 99% chance to act "normal" simultaneously.

#32 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:18 PM



Do these logically make sense? I'm working on this argument based on the rationality of the universe. I'd like to know if it has a name already--I don't expect to be original on this.

My premises are:
1. The universe is rational--it is defined by laws. Even quantum physics can be defined to an extent.
2. 2nd law of thermodynamics... logically, chaos cannot result in order without intervention.
3. Thus, the rationality if the universe demands a rational origin, hence God, who is a rational being, caused the universe.



I like it, but I want to point out some areas that might be an issue:

1. Reality seems rational yes, however modern understanding of quantum mechanics, which you hint at, does suggest an irrational (random) basis for reality. This is illustrated by Bell's inequalities and the related experiments. Just search for Bells Theorem and you'll find what I am talking about.



The first thing we must understand is that the “modern understanding of quantum mechanics” as contextually applied in the above has absolutely no bearing on its opposition to “reality”.

Reality (noun)

1- Real Existence – Actual being or existence, as opposed to an imaginary, idealized, or false nature.
2- All that exists or happens – Something everything that actually does or could exist or happen in real life.
3- Something that exists or happens – Something that has real existence and must be dealt with in real life.
4- Type of Existence – An existence or universe, either connected with or independent from other kinds.
(Encarta Dictionary)

Quantum mechanics on the other hand is an attempted explanation in the study and analysis of the interactions of atoms and elementary particles based on quantum theory. At best it is in its extreme infancy and the hypotheses far outweigh the facts.

Further, quantum mechanics in no way disturbs reality, as reality is that which is “REAL” and therefore cannot be “Irrational”. Therefore the statement “Reality seems rational” is self-stultifying, because REALITY IS REAL”…

#33 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:23 PM

Quantum mechanics on the other hand is an attempted explanation in the study and analysis of the interactions of atoms and elementary particles based on quantum theory. At best it is in its extreme infancy and the hypotheses far outweigh the facts.



I mostly agree, but could I ask you to explain Bells theorem and Bells inequality to me, so that I can judge whether or not you understand the experiemental evidence in favor of quantum mechanical principles in order to make such authoritative statements about them?

Further, quantum mechanics in no way disturbs reality



I tend to agree with this as well, the quantum effects occur at tiny scales and for those effects to propogate up the heirarchy of scale would be near impossible in my opinion.

as reality is that which is “REAL” and therefore cannot be “Irrational”.


This is a non-sequitur. Real and rational are not synonyms. Rational means an idea that is in agreement with the knowledge (which may be false) possessed by an individual. Reality can certainly be irrational, if it turns out that it is not in agreement with the knowledge that we possess currently... which it may be. We are limited to the tiny portion of reality that we can observe, and that limited perspective may not accurately represent the majority

#34 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:55 AM


Quantum mechanics on the other hand is an attempted explanation in the study and analysis of the interactions of atoms and elementary particles based on quantum theory. At best it is in its extreme infancy and the hypotheses far outweigh the facts.

I mostly agree, but could I ask you to explain Bells theorem and Bells inequality to me, so that I can judge whether or not you understand the experiemental evidence in favor of quantum mechanical principles in order to make such authoritative statements about them?

My ability to explain ‘Bells theorem and Bells inequality’ has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not quantum mechanics is, or is not in its infancy.

http://www.dailynexu...research-waves/

http://www.netplaces...and-biology.htm

http://convergence.u...le/quantum-leap

Etcetera… Etcetera… ad nauseam

What is more important here is that YOU are building a straw-man instead if admitting the lack of ‘empirical’ (materialistic validation) knowledge in quantum mechanics, OR providing the validity of materialistic evidence FOR quantum mechanics.

Further, I don’t need to provide evidence of MY understanding of ‘Bells theorem and Bells inequality’ to cover for YOUR inability to provide the validity of materialistic evidence FOR the majority of quantum mechanics.


Further, quantum mechanics in no way disturbs reality

I tend to agree with this as well, the quantum effects occur at tiny scales and for those effects to propogate up the heirarchy of scale would be near impossible in my opinion.


Therefore quantum mechanics MUST agree with reality!


as reality is that which is “REAL” and therefore cannot be “Irrational”.


This is a non-sequitur. Real and rational are not synonyms. Rational means an idea that is in agreement with the knowledge (which may be false) possessed by an individual. Reality can certainly be irrational, if it turns out that it is not in agreement with the knowledge that we possess currently... which it may be. We are limited to the tiny portion of reality that we can observe, and that limited perspective may not accurately represent the majority


No… It is not at all a “non sequitur”, as I at no time said (or inferred) that “Real and Rational” are linguistically synonymous, and it is disingenuous of you to suggest such. Further, you are putting the cart before the horse (i.e. ‘a priori’ opinion). I argued from a ‘a posteriori’ stance:

Reality = “that which is being or existence, as opposed to an imaginary, idealized, or false nature”… Or “something that has real existence and must be dealt with in real life” etc…) In other words (as I stated) “Reality is that which is REAL”

Rational = That which is “Reasonable or Rational”: Rationality is “governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice”, or Rationality is the ability “think clearly and sensibly, unimpaired by physical or mental condition, strong emotion, or prejudice”.

On the other hand Irrationality is contrary to or lacking in reason or logic!

Therefore “Reality” is that which is “REAL” and therefore CANNOT be “Irrational”.

Your equivocal nature, and inability to think and act rationally are two of the main reasons you are no longer here.

Attached Files



#35 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,880 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 18 July 2012 - 10:33 AM

Do these logically make sense? I'm working on this argument based on the rationality of the universe. I'd like to know if it has a name already--I don't expect to be original on this.

My premises are:
1. The universe is rational--it is defined by laws. Even quantum physics can be defined to an extent.
2. 2nd law of thermodynamics... logically, chaos cannot result in order without intervention.
3. Thus, the rationality if the universe demands a rational origin, hence God, who is a rational being, caused the universe.


If I am not mistake Einstein said he didn't believe in the big bang theory. He felt the universe was far to "lumpy'
meaning there were clusters of stars more prevelent in certain areas of the universe than others. He concluded that were the big bang true, all energy would have cooled down to matter at the edge of the universe.

Moreover, why hasn't the sun's enrgy turned into matter somewhere out there? Our sun is still hot. Why should a a similar ball of energy havecooled and formed the earth? Space has a temperature of 357f beloow 0. The vaccum of space discourages the cooling of the sun.

Some laws of the universe are what I would call soft. Take gravity for instance. .There are other laws that can overpower it as is evident by the laws governing flight . If gravity were absolute, mothing could fly. overcoming gravity for consistant directional flight takes intelligence (life). Laws can typically be manipulated by something living and intelligent. (God).

Keep in mind that all theories are generated by Intelligent beings called humans. Nothing is known or observed without the given ability of intelligence.

The theory of evolution was created by an intelligent human. As is true of the universe, things on earth deteriorate and are not observed to inrease in complexity without input from intelligent life.

As we observe, life & intelligence only comes from life & intelligence. The Bible states that life & intelligence has always existed in the form of God.

There is one law I would like to see attatched to the laws of thermodynamics. That is that intelligence can reverse the second law of thermodynamics.

If my soda assumes room temperature, I can cool it back down by using other laws of the universe intelligently to do so. Intelligence rules!

Since you exist as intelligent life in the universe there is no argument that intelligence can't exist elsewhere in the universe. It would be quite arogant to assume that no one smarter than us could exist in the same unverse we exist in (God).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users