Adonai88 wrote:Therefore outside of our universe, irrational things can happen ? like a square be equal a circle ? or 1 + 1 = 3 ? you don't believe that, do you ?
No, I don't. Although, interestingly you do. You believe that everything must have a cause, including the universe. But you also believe in a being who is an exception to the rule - the very rule that you use to demonstrate that being's necessity.
it seems you do not carefully read what i write. Not everything must have a cause, but everything that beginst to exist
, needs a cause. The universe makes no exeption here.
Even within our universe particle and anti-particle pairs come into existence all the time and are usually (but not always) annihilated preserving the average nothing.
They don't arise from absolutely nothing
There's nothing irrational about it, even if it contradicts our everyday experiences. As I said before, and cannot stress enough, common sense is not sufficient for the deep questions of cosmology.
Virtual particles are frequently misunderstood as coming from absolutely nothing. That is not
John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" (, p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause.
That's not the assertion I made. I said that "the only examples of intelligence we know of have come about through slow evolution". That remains true, although in the near future, I expect we will also encounter examples of intelligence that have been created by humans.
You have still not shown empirical evidence to back up your claim. Where is it ?
Reason tells us that the chance of intelligence existing without such a process is so vanishingly unlikely as to be essentially impossible.
You're making even less sense than usual. We need reason to deduce things for which there is no empirical evidence. As it is impossible to prove a negative, all we can do is make reasoned deductions based on the evidence we do have. Intelligence requires a certain level of complexity. It is absurdly unlikely that a sufficient level of complexity could simply exist by itself without some sort of self-organising process.
Again. You make a lot of assertions. Prove them to be true.
That is both irrelevant and untrue.
It is not only relevant , but also true.
Einstein, A. (1944). Remarks on Russell's theory of knowledge. In P. A. Schlipp (ed.) The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell (pp.277-291). New York: Tudor.
On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional space-time relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages (e.g., English, French, Navajo, etc.). Between the two realms, we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.
An experiment? Are you remotely serious? At some point you're going to have to put up or shut up. If you can provide me with evidence of a single example of intelligence that has not evolved, please do so.
you say that is a proven fact. you provide the empirical proofs.
I don't - indeed, can't - know for sure.
Ahhhh - we come to see the facts now. You can't prove for sure...... So why do you make baseless assertions then ???!!!!!
But there is no evidence for an intelligence, no plausible scenario by which such an intelligence could come to be and nothing that requires it.
You said you had proves. Now your story sounds a little different.......So how about instead of making empty claims, you answer straightforward the question of this thread ?
Please present good reasons for philosophical naturalism. What makes you believe nature , our universe, is all there is ??
Because no intelligence is required.
Why not ? Nothing than baseless assertions on hand ?
http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2 ... -universe/
Think about whatever it is you think needed to be done by a god before the Big Bang and replace that god with an unintelligent but complex machine (a robo-god if you will). What could God do that Robo-God could not?
Self-existence because whatever is the cause of the universe must ultimately be uncaused. If it is not, then the argument just moves back one step. There has to be a first uncaused cause.
This cause cannot exist in the time/space/material universe because then it would exist within the very universe it created. That is impossible.
The cause must be incredibly powerful to have created the entire universe and all of its physical laws.
The cause must be personal because an impersonal force would be deterministic and mechanistic, not possessing free will. A mechanistic being only operates according to the programming it received from something else. But if the cause of the universe received programming from something else, then we have again not provided the answer to the cause of the universe. We have just found a middle-man. The cause had to make a choice to create and only beings who are personal can make choices.
Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being who we call God.
Because unless you're some sort of colossal moron, you would have presented it by now.
Its not my intention to present it at this thread, because this thread is not about that issue. Its about YOU presenting good reasons for philosophical naturalism. So far, you have failed quit obviously. Wanna try harder ?