I’m not denying evolution or entropy nor how life came to be through such processes but they happen because the laws of nature allow evolution to occur by enabling organisms to adapt to their environment.

The point is none of these interactions that created life could occur if there were not some laws of biochemistry or physics that dictate how particles interact with each other to give rise to abundant complexity. Without these interactions there would no life and it’s precisely these laws of nature which need explanation not just the end result (life) whilst the latter can be explained by pure chance the former would need an explanation of where these laws came from.

It makes sense then to attribute intelligent laws to an intelligent agent or lawmaker hence my argument.

What occurs, including what comes to exist, could very well be the product of chance. We exist as a consequence of the way the world happens to be. If it is actually possible for the world to have differred, other sorts of things might have existed. — Relativist

So you think processes such as cell replication or photosynthesis come to be by pure chance? A designer would have better explanatory power here. Labelling it as evolution does not rule out god because they set the laws that govern and allow evolution to take place. Without a designer matter would just remain stagnant and nothing would have happened or emerged, no life and certainly no intelligence. Again you might say well it’s just biochemistry and matter will interact with other matter or its environment to create different processes given the right environmental conditions but again I ask you why has it produced something useful like a plant alongside the innate rock? There are many factors which need to combine to create even the simplest life and although they could have come to be through chance to me it implies that there are intelligent rules or laws which enables such life to form.

then how do you account for an intelligent creator to produce the design? — Relativist

Existence is eternal therefore it’s possible that such a being could have emerged with capabilities to express his will through his creation as he sees fit. Or another explanation which you might not like is that such a being has always existed and is uncreated.

Whether the design is poor or optimal is irrelevant, the point is to prove that there is (any) design, which would lead to a designer. If there was no design in nature there would just be primordial matter and nothing else but the fact that nature for example is able to invent/evolve such processes as photosynthesis shows intelligence in action and the tell tale signs of on overarching intelligence in action such as that of a God.

When looking at natures inventiveness/evolution at problem solving and coming up with solutions to environmental requirements this exhibits intelligence, no? What is it that is happening then ? Evolution, yes? Of course, yet why are there these types of interactions occurring here in the first place?

How do you/we know this? — 180 Proof

Well do you hold the idea that 10,000 monkeys could write the completed works of Shakespeare through random chance, what logic would you use to support this idea?

My beliefs are based on observation of the natural world which as I’ve stated before shows signs of intelligence, design whatever you wanna call it. This to me constitutes evidence of God.

The non god alternative is that these manifestations of intelligence occurred through dumb luck, which is not possible. It’s like 10,000 monkeys randomly typing on a keyboard and creating the complete works of Shakespeare. Just not possible.

I was just asking…
Uncreated, eternal existence is easier to digest logically than a created one, granted, as the latter would require how’s and why’s etc, where’s the former would not be prone to such questioning.

Indeed the uncreated existence (laws of nature) can be seen as God in some ways in the way that Einstein and Spinoza conceived God for example, but another question that comes to mind is if these laws of nature are eternal could it not yield a god in the way some monotheistic religions describe it as? After all in this type of eternal existence some sort of omnipotence could arise…

I think you give governments more credit than they are due when it comes to their ability to cover their tracks…after all there would be leaks somewhere down the line.

It would be cool if aliens have or had visited us but I just don’t believe it has happened. Plus with everyone having a camera at their fingertips these days we would have evidence for it but we hardly have any credible ones.

Are you saying the "signs of intelligence" in the universe are...us? — Relativist

Not just us but all life forms show intelligent processes in them such as plants through photosynthesis.

The gradual development of intelligent beings, somewhere in an old, vast universe seems much more plausible than an intelligence just happening to exist, uncaused and without a prior history of development. — Relativist

My view of intelligence is that it has always existed and what we observe in nature and us is just it manifesting itself. So it precedes us.

So...the writers of scripture (2K+ years ago) were able to figure this out, but we can't. — Relativist

I don’t believe in scripture too much and much of it was speculation as to the reasons behind creation or motives of the creator.

I assume that would mean that God is not separate from his creation. I guess the question is where did these laws of nature, physics etc come from or who created them if god and existence are equivalent.

In my view the universe displays signs of intelligence through its beings which would imply intrinsic intelligence embedded within it from the start, probably pointing towards a creator God. As to his reasons or motivations for creating, they cannot be inferred without resorting to scriptures.

I think we’re lucky to exist. Sure life is unfair and a struggle at times but we’re lucky enough to experience the good that comes from it. You don’t have to be rich to enjoy it, it’s just a ride and getting off it before it finishes hurts (suicide) so just let life play itself out, don’t put too much pressure on yourself, we’re blessed that we get to exist because when we cease to exist that will be forever and it’s a once only event.

The probability of life emerging elsewhere in the universe where there are trillions of solar systems is greater than 0 so there’s probably life out there too.

The issue is that of technological advancement and capability of traveling to other worlds and overcoming the light speed barrier to do so. In this regard we have no conclusive proof or evidence that this has happened but are left with conspiracy theories that they have in fact visited earth but are covered up by government. The question is why?

One of the reasons it could have been covered up is that we’re a war mongering species so any technological advantage we may develop because of this tech would be best kept under wraps in order to maintain such an advantage.

Personally I do not believe that governments have had any contact or exchange with alien civilisations by the mere fact that had we done so we’d be more enlightened and collaborative as a species instead of a war mongering one.

Also if aliens capable of traversing interstellar distances would most likely come in peace and would want to instantiate or initiate contact with us, and the fact that this hasn’t happened is not due to some conspiracy but rather that they haven’t tried to make contact with us or just hasn’t happened.

I think that is a better version of Christianity, where human beings are able to exist without any repercussions regarding the choices they make in their life and being able to choose whether to acknowledge such a God or not as you say he does not require any covenants.

Your view of God in this respect is similar to mine, but with the added bonus of immortality granted to beings who express his will the best and who are as morally good as it is possible.

However I do not subscribe to the creation myth or garden idea because I cannot infer purpose from god nor any motivation behind his reason for creating this world. It could be that initially god rolled the dice and created the universe where life may emerge due to intrinsic inevitability of the properties of physics, maths and matter such that life’s emergence was inevitable not just on this planet.

This leads to many questions such as his relationship to his creation and creatures within it, as god himself is immortal does is this property also inherited by human beings who wish to attain immortality as well or is it just an exclusive property belonging to god only? If so then we are but the flicker of a candle in the wind compared to god’s eternal existence. If we have no intrinsic purpose to our existence but to enjoy it (and some don’t) then if we die never to be reborn then our creation was meaningless.

Nature encourages diversity and incest does the opposite, not to mention birth defects that could result from it. Even if it was purely for recreation reasons then it would be simply taboo in most western societies because it’s frowned upon for obvious reasons that others have mentioned here.

The intelligence manifested by the universe does not necessarily entail an intelligent designer but it does not rule it out either.

To me it strongly points towards a creator/designer whose attributes are embodied by nature rather than just a disembodied being. This does not mean that this being (God) does not transcend nature itself.

Sure complex systems like biology and life could arise by chance such as they did via evolution yet the chain of events from non-life to life could not have occurred if this matter was inane, strengthening the need for an ever existing intelligence in the universe or God.

Starting off with the simplest chemical reactions to the emergence of complex systems such as plants, trees and even animals which are able to reproduce and self perpetuate. This is too much of a leap no matter what odds it takes for it to occur and happen by chance but rather the signs of a pre-existing eternal intelligence rather than just an emergent phenomena.

As far as I'm concerned, any hypothesis about the origin of life on earth is better than abiogenesis, because abiogenesis is really nothing other than the lack of an hypothesis. It basically says that since we have no idea where life came from, or how life came about, let's just assume that it sprang from nothing (spontaneous generation). See, it's really a lack of hypothesis, more than anything else. The flying spaghetti monster is a better hypothesis, because at least it hypothesizes something — Metaphysician Undercover

You’re misconstruing what abiogenesis is, it is the emergence of life from non-life via natural processes not spontaneous generation. Therefore it remains a valid hypothesis though it may not have all the answers we are looking for.

Thanks for that, it just goes to outline another limitation of language, not its finitude but its inability to map to uncountable infinite elements.

This would be impractical in its application in the real world and would serve no use apart from counting, though the points in a line are infinite naming/identifying each point in a line would be an unnecessary exercise.

There are different types of language such as mathematical or musical which overcome the limits of ordinary language in what they can express.

Non lyrical music is auditory and can evoke certain emotions that ordinary language cannot such as longing or nostalgia or other emotions felt by the subject when hearing it.

That’s because the points on a line are infinite, why can’t there be infinite words ?

You will run out of those. — Tarskian

No you won’t, you can just create new identifiers (words).

Although the wave equation predicts how a system evolves, it does not explain why a specific outcome crystallizes upon measurement. This explanatory gap highlighted the need to incorporate the observer into the framework, marking a significant shift in how science interacts with the humanities. — Wayfarer

But isn’t making making a measurement simply taking a snapshot or picture of how things are at that moment in time ? Where does the observer come into it apart from the interpretation of the result.

If there are more planets than possible words then you can't give each of them a different name. It doesn't matter if you have seen all of them. — Tarskian

No issue, just make up a new word for it. Or letter number designation.

What is language trying to express if not human experience? What else could be the purpose of language? — Dorrian

It can also express ideas from abstract to concrete. The descriptive power of words and language only fails when it overreaches this domain by trying to express emotions and sensations that are produced by the nervous system which is non-linguistic in its communication.

So, to answer your question, we can't truly express anything with language, but it's the tool we have to communicate our experiences to others. — T Clark

Language is limited if it extends itself beyond descriptions of reality, logic or experience. It especially fails when it comes to describing emotions and sensations although poetry or song may be able to invoke or replicate the emotion that is intended to be transmitted by it.

On the other hand it’s great at transmitting ideas and knowledge be they abstract, conceptual or concrete as long as the language furnishes them adequately otherwise it would lead to misunderstanding.

Our extensive vocabulary must account for objects of perception and abstract thoughts and ideas in order to be an effective tool of communication and expression. Sensations produced by the nervous system such as taste can be captured by language too but because they are experiential and sometimes subjective they tend to not be expressed so well by language even though we know what the word sweetness is, the palette of sweetness evades linguistic expression because it’s bigger than our vocabulary can express.

What does it mean to say that language "expresses"? — tim wood

To describe some aspect of experience or reality. To articulate wants and communicate ideas.

You realize - yes? - that you're talking nonsense here. E.g., if a thing exists that is not an actual thing, and then it "manifests as an actual thing," then it is either the same thing or a different thing, and in-as-much as it goes from being a not-actual thing to an actual thing, then it's hard for me to see how it is the same thing. — tim wood

I’ve used the term pre-existing to describe a phenomenon that has always existed prior to its manifestation in nature in this case intelligence. As we have evidence of intelligence existing in the world it’s not unreasonable to ask whether it’s always been or only emerged at some point in time like matter did with the Big Bang.

We know with certainty that intelligence (human or non-human) emerged at some point in the distant past and that it emerged from inanimate matter, this must mean that it’s been there all along or it wouldn’t exist at all. Why would it exist if it didn’t exist ?

When I say it’s been there all along I’m faced with a problem because the same logic can be applied to matter as we know that it hasn’t been there all along, it only existed after the Big Bang. Yet we don’t fully understand the Big Bang either or how something can come from nothing which is not logically possible unless it’s always been there in some form or other eternally. This same logic can be applied when we talk about intelligence.

And as to the claim of the existence of not-existing things, it's incumbent on you to make clear just how that can be. — tim wood

I’m not claiming the existence of non-existing things, I’m claiming that something (matter, intelligence) has always existed.

Thanks wonderer that makes more sense, although abiogenesis is unsatisfactory at this time in terms of providing answers or conclusive explanation of how non-life to life happened it at least gives us something to work on.

When someone such as yourself claims that abiogenesis is how life came about, that is nothing but woo-woo. Then to add that it\s a scientific theory, is nothing but to use falsity to support your woo-woo. It is not a scientific theory because it is not supported by science, meaning it is not supported by empirical evidence. That there are scientists who have sought to support abiogenesis with science, but have proven to be unsuccessful, is simply evidence that abiogenesis is nothing but woo-woo. — Metaphysician Undercover

Abiogenesis is simply a theory of how life came from non-life, what’s woo-woo about that ? It’s just a word for a type of process(es) that occurred 3.5 billions of years ago during the inception of life. How can it be supported by science when we’re not privy to the conditions and events that transformed non living matter to living one 3.5 billions of years ago.

In the absence of alternative theories abiogenesis is just a label of how life came from non-life. You may dismiss it as woo-woo but it still remains a valid theory although it doesn’t have the answers of exactly how life came about, you have the right to remain sceptical about it.

You keep calling it woo-woo, but doesn’t all science aim and attempt to explain natural phenomena using the scientific method? You’re incorrect in your assumption that abiogenesis has the answer to how life happened. This may be speculative but it’s not woo-woo, we may never know how life occurred from non-life.

How would you be able to obtain empirical evidence of the creation of life from non life which is said to have occurred 3.5 billion years ago ? The best we can do is theorise.

The study of abiogenesis aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life under conditions strikingly different from those on Earth today. It primarily uses tools from biology and chemistry, with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of many sciences. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water, and builds largely upon four key families of chemicals: lipids for cell membranes, carbohydrates such as sugars, amino acids for protein metabolism, and nucleic acid DNA and RNA for the mechanisms of heredity. Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules.

What part of the above is woo-woo when it clearly tries to use the scientific method to investigate how the transition from non-life to life occurred?

Actually, abiogenesis is what is best described as "woo-woo". — Metaphysician Undercover

I believe it’s an accepted scientific theory, what’s the alternative when it comes to explaining the origin of life ?

So, is your claim that something exists before it exists? Or is it something else? — tim wood

No my claim is that something exists before it manifests as an actual thing in the world, in this case intelligence. To me at least it has always existed. It’s manifestation in nature is merely the evidence that it always has existed. Does this make more sense to you ?

Inanimate matter could have continued to remain inanimate yet it didn’t because we have life (intelligence) so something happened to it which we can’t explain, we call this process abiogenesis. There are two options either intelligence is embedded in matter or it is separate from it. If it was the latter it must have acted upon matter to give it life, I hope this explanation does not sound supernatural but is one that makes logical sense. If it’s the former then there’s no issue as intelligence would simply be an inherent property of matter.

There is no absolute freedom. I am limited in various ways, due to the nature of my being. I cannot flap my arms and fly to Hawaii for the weekend. I cannot ingest dirt for nutrition. I cannot bear children. On and on. — Patterner

You’re restricted by the physical limitations of being human, would a bird capable of flying to Hawaii have more freedom than you in this scenario? The limitation can easily be overcome if you had your own private jet to fly to Hawaii whenever you pleased.

Freedom is not absolute in this sense because of the physical limitations imposed by the universe, for example we can’t (at least yet) go faster than light. Do such physical restrictions matter to you or would unlimited freedom only apply to a being such as God?

In order to answer the question of whether we are truly free we first have to know or define what freedom is. If freedom is the choice to live and make decisions freely without negatively impacting the freedom, property rights and wellbeing of others as protected by law then we are free as long as we don’t overstep the mark in terms of the effects it will have on others. Though I may be free to steal someone’s car I must live with consequence of this decision which is the removal of my freedom/liberty upon being caught and found guilty of this crime.

Freedom to do as one pleases within the realm of possibility is freedom enough as long as we operate within the laws of the land which don’t necessarily restrict freedom by having imperatives and consequences on certain choice actions such as murder, theft etc.

I’m truly free when I’m not bound by the causality of actions leading to a choice, in this respect I have free will, as long as I can make acausal choices or decisions.

The real issue with psychology is that it tries to treat non-organic problems organically that is through medication which can be inhumane rather than other more humane methods such as CBT for example. It makes too many assumptions about the workings of the brain by trying to simplify it. Mental health problems are not located in the brain but in the patients perception/cognition of the world. In this regard the field of psychiatry remains in the dark ages.

Emotion is something that is felt, take for example love, the degree to which it can be expressed in words is limited, we can utter I love you or we can perform non-linguistic actions such as buying them flowers to demonstrate it, yet what is felt when one is in love cannot be adequately expressed with words as feelings are non-linguistic in nature yet language can bridge the gap to a certain extent but not fully.

Just like we have a word for happiness what is felt is a purely subjective experience yet because of the commonality between other people we know what happiness is but not what is felt.

At one point in our history written and verbal language was primitive yet this does not exclude the range of human experience that is universal amongst men it’s just that despite the evolution of our language the full range of human experience cannot be truly expressed.

But what does this mean ? Does it mean there’s flaws in our language or that some parts of human experience are just ineffable ?

What if you witnessed a unicorn in fiction such as in a movie or a book, does the unicorn exist in this type of frame or it doesn’t exist because it’s not real? Do existents always have to have a one to one correspondence with reality. Do triangles exist in your view ? They’re not mythical but abstractions of thought. If a unicorn exists in thought the same way a triangle does why can’t we say it doesn’t exist ?

Nothing except saying that amounts to an evidence-free fairytale – pseudo-science (e.g. "intelligent design") or pseudo-philosophy (e.g. "vitalism, panpsychism") – that does not explain anything. — 180 Proof

My view is pantheistic more than anything and probably Spinozist.

Spinoza argued that whatever exists is in God. The divine being is not some distant force, but all around us. Nothing in nature is separate from Him: not people, animals or inanimate objects. Today, the view that God is synonymous with nature is called “pantheism,” and this term is often retrospectively applied to Spinoza. Whatever the label, the view was—and still is—portrayed as a denial of God’s transcendent power. Spinoza was accused of denying the ontological difference between God and His creations, thereby trivialising the creator.

Spinoza’s philosophy does not trivialise God in the slightest. It is true that in his conception God is intimately bound up with nature. But just because God is not separate from the world that does not mean He is identical to it. Actually, He is distinct, because there is a relationship of dependence that travels only one way: we are constitutionally dependent on God, but God is not dependent on us, argues Spinoza.

For Spinoza, everything we are, and indeed the continued existence of all things, is a manifestation of God’s power. Carlisle uses the term “being-in-God” to describe this aspect of Spinoza’s thought: the way we are created by—and conceived through—God.

Instead of power though I’m using the term intelligence which although not synonymous dictates how nature is a manifestation of such a power. I’m kinda new to Spinoza so you might have to help me with his conception of God, if he is eternal then so is the power and intelligence which precede its manifestation in nature.

In the first example, forcing someone to make a decision doesn't force them to make a neutral one — T Clark

The first example is a decision not based on neutrality, values or beliefs though. We’re not always making decision based on neutrality, personal beliefs or values but based on circumstances for example a poor person buys cheap products because they’re restricted by their finances not their tastes, values or personal beliefs.

No threats, but circumstances, such as: you have to work otherwise you will end up on the streets or no food on table is such an example of a forced decision, on the other extreme slavery was a forced decision too or a custodial sentence handed by a judge to a defendant a decision with which the defendant has no choice but to accept.

That is the reason that making decisions while being neutral is often considered best because one's chances of having correct beliefs or a lot closed than his chances of having wrong beliefs. So, the impact of personal beliefs in decision making can be good or bad it just depends on your beliefs — QuirkyZen

I can make correct decisions based on my taste rather then belief, the sense of taste is subjective to me for example I prefer to drink orange juice instead of cola because I prefer the taste of the former. This means I’m not being neutral yet I’m making the best decision for myself.

We can make unbiased decisions which turn out to be bad decisions for example arbitrarily backing a team to win at a certain sporting event which later turns out to be the wrong decision. That decision could have been easily made by flipping a coin rather than personal values or beliefs on the strength/weakness of such team.

It will really help if you can give us an example of a decision that you or anyone has made without input from personal values and beliefs. — T Clark

What about a forced decision, one that is imposed upon someone without their consent ?