Simple, a super ultra intelligent great being is needed to manage the world.

I do not believe the universe is a purposeless accidental event. — prothero

Can you make a case for your belief, or is it an article of faith?

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.

In my view the universe displays signs of intelligence through its beings which would imply intrinsic intelligence embedded within it from the start, — kindred

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

Either way, how does that imply "intrinsic intelligence" embedded in the universe?

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.

As to his reasons or motivations for creating, they cannot be inferred without resorting to scriptures. — kindred

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

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.

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. — kindred

This thread is about "proving" God. I hope you can see that you're not doing that. I'm fine with people having faith-based beliefs, but they shouldn't fool themselves into thinking it's based in reason.

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.

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. — kindred

Compositional fallacy —> (believer's) confirmation bias. Also: your "creator deity / intelligent design" belief, sir, is refuted by the argument from poor design.

Just not possible.

How do you/we know this?

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. — kindred

There is no evidence that entails God.

Your observations of the world are seen through the prism of your belief in God. The signs you see of intelligence are explainable by natural means. If you haven't given serious consideration to the alternative, you haven't "proven" anything - you've just rationalize what you believe.

The non god alternative is that these manifestations of intelligence occurred through dumb luck, which is not possible. — kindred

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. How does low probability consequence imply luck? Luck generally entails a contestant happening to be the beneficiary of chance. There is no set of contestants who participated in a contest to pick a winner. You could conjecture that our existence is low probability, but that gets you nowhere- low probability things happen all the time.

If you think intelligence is something special that requires design to produce it, then how do you account for an intelligent creator to produce the design? That's why I previously pointed out that it seems much more likely that intelligence is the product of chance events in a universe of vast size and age, rather than just happening to exist in an uncaused being (a "god"). So this line of reasoning seems self-defeating.

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.

You made the claim so you have the burden of proof. Believe whatever you fancy, sir – apparently, you don't understand the argument from poor design. or why your "belief" is fallacious as I've pointed out .

So you think processes such as cell replication or photosynthesis come to be by pure chance? A designer would have better explanatory power here. — kindred

So you think intelligence, and knowledge just happens to exist uncaused?

To your question: entropy is a measure of the number of different ways that a set of objects can be arranged. One of the ways fundamental particles can be arranged is in the configuration of a self-replicating molecule. That is sufficient to start evolution. It is very low probability that this would occur by pure chance in any one suitable event, but in a vast, old, universe - it becomes likely to occur at least once. Evolution has all the explanatory power needed to explain everything that life develops into.

Without a designer matter would just remain stagnant and nothing would have happened or emerged, no life and certainly no intelligence. — kindred

Whatever gives you that silly idea? It's clear the universe evolves per laws of nature, and it's
reasonable to view these as part of the fabric of reality.

why has it produced something useful like a plant alongside the innate rock? — kindred

As I said, because it's possible - and sufficiently probable to occur at least once in a vast, old universe in which a enormous number of (individually) improbable things occur.

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. — kindred

Non-sequitur. The probability is extremely low in any specific time or place, but again- a vast, old universe provides a sufficient number of chances for it to occur at least once.

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. ... — kindred

Emerged from what? You claim the conditions needed for intelligence to emerge in the universe imply an intelligence behind it. So you'd have to assume the same thing for a God-like intelligence to emerge- thus an vicious, infinite regress.

Or another explanation which you might not like is that such a being has always existed and is uncreated.

Explain how this is more plausible than intelligence gradually emerging. It entails magical knowledge- knowing without a process of developing knowledge.

So you think processes such as cell replication or photosynthesis come to be by pure chance? — kindred

'Pure chance' is not the scientific alternative to Intelligent Design:

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. — kindred

In terms of probability, it's as unlikely as any other character sequence of that length.
Equally unlikely, equally possible.
By the way, something similar applies to other (long) event sequences.
Favoritism looks like bias.

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.

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

It makes sense to you because you believe God created everything. Here's a more general metaphysical perspective.

Unless one accepts an infinite series of causes, there is a first cause - that exists without explanation. This could be a God, but it could also be an initial state of material reality. There's no objective basis to exempt God from requiring an explanation while insisting a natural first cause requires one.

A natural first-cause would be comprised of the fundamental material of reality (physicists think quantum fields may be the fundamental material, but it doesn't matter to the metaphysical analysis). Natural laws would be part of the fabric of this fundamental material, and would be the ultimate ground of all laws that we see manifested.

So the question is: which is more plausible? A being of infinite complexity, with magical knowledge of everything it could do and it's consequences OR a natural state of affairs that evolves due to its internal characteristics? Each is uncaused and exists without deeper explanation. Which is the more parsimonious, and thus better, explanation?

Here is an argument for the existence of God:

1. If anything exists, then there must be something that exists.
2. If something depends on another for its existence and the second thing exists, then so must the first.
3. If everything depended on another for its existence, then nothing would exist.
4. Therefore, if anything exists, and there exist things that depend on another for their existence, or not, there must exist something that does not depend on another for its existence.
5. Consequently, if anything exists, there must exist something that does not depend on another.
6. Something does exist.
7. So, there must exist something that does not depend on another.

Note: this argument is similar to the "argument from being" formulated by Norman Geisler.

Here is an argument for the existence of God:

1. If anything exists, then there must be something that exists.
2. If something depends on another for its existence and the second thing exists, then so must the first.
3. If everything depended on another for its existence, then nothing would exist.
4. Therefore, if anything exists, and there exist things that depend on another for their existence, or not, there must exist something that does not depend on another for its existence.
5. Consequently, if anything exists, there must exist something that does not depend on another.
6. Something does exist.
7. So, there must exist something that does not depend on another. — NotAristotle

The argument doesn't prove a "God" exists. It proves there is an autonomous, bottom layer of reality. This is metaphysical foundationalism.

So the question is: which is more plausible? A being of infinite complexity, with magical knowledge of everything it could do and it's consequences OR a natural state of affairs that evolves due to its internal characteristics? Each is uncaused and exists without deeper explanation. Which is the more parsimonious, and thus better, explanation? — Relativist

The physicists say back at the beginning, there should have been an equal number of matter and antimatter particles created, which should have prevented matter from predominating. They do not know why matter particles came to outnumber antimatter particles. Before I wonder about everything that came after, I wonder why the matter particles won. Did a being of infinite complexity rig the game, or does a "natural" state of affairs prefer matter over antimatter?

It's the job of physicists to figure out why there's an imbalance between particles and antiparticles. It doesn't make much sense to attribute every unsolved problem to God; it certainly doesn't "prove" Goddidit- that would be an argument from ignorance.

So the question is: which is more plausible? A being of infinite complexity, with magical knowledge of everything it could do and it's consequences OR a natural state of affairs that evolves due to its internal characteristics? Each is uncaused and exists without deeper explanation. Which is the more parsimonious, and thus better, explanation — Relativist

You’re making an assumption about the nature of god, instead I would argue for divine simplicity instead of complexity.

According to the classical theism of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and their adherents, God is radically unlike creatures and cannot be adequately understood in ways appropriate to them. God is simple in that God transcends every form of complexity and composition familiar to the discursive intellect. One consequence is that the simple God lacks parts. This lack is not a deficiency but a positive feature. God is ontologically superior to every partite entity, and his partlessness is an index thereof.

The issue of course is one of proof, and to account for an explanation of how the universe has developed to create and imbue creatures with intelligence one has to ask if this intelligence or consciousness has not always existed in the form of god (of divine simplicity) and life is merely a manifestation of one of its facets.

Feel free to read more on the above quote: https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/divine-simplicity/

Perhaps the striving of all 'being' is to process what living allows it to process and reach for becoming whatever it can become. There is so much to process! The autopoietic, recursive, folding and unfolding of the striving would generate unfathomable combinations of creative manifestations, some more successful than others, but ultimately looping back in to encourage striving and further processing. ... Pretty glorious and amazing, from my perspective.

You’re making an assumption about the nature of god, instead I would argue for divine simplicity instead of complexity. — kindred

Omniscience entails an infinitely complex set of knowledge, existing by brute fact. Divine simplicity doesn't deal with this.

I think that largely depends on what someone considers "god." However, in a similar vein, I think it's possible to prove the "soul" exists.

Assuming that the souls is:

1) an invisible force inside but separate from your body that

2) makes you who you are and

3) leaves your body upon death

then I think the "soul" can pretty easily be interpreted as the electricity in your body and the interplay it has with your various biological processes.

It's the job of physicists to figure out why there's an imbalance between particles and antiparticles. It doesn't make much sense to attribute every unsolved problem to God; it certainly doesn't "prove" Goddidit- that would be an argument from ignorance. — Relativist

The only unsolved problem that could truly be blamed on a god is the problem of how existence was created. All other "unsolved problems" are just detritus from the opening act. And perhaps it's the job of philosophers to figure out why there's an imbalance between particles and antiparticles.

To paraphrase a scene from "The Graduate"

God: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.

Me: Yes, sir.

God: Are you listening?

Me: Yes, I am.

God: Fractals.

The only unsolved problem that could truly be blamed on a god is the problem of how existence was created. — alleybear

It's logically impossible for existence to be created.

All other "unsolved problems" are just detritus from the opening act. And perhaps it's the job of philosophers to figure out why there's an imbalance between particles and antiparticles.

Philosophers can only speculate. Physicists engage in speculations too, but then they test them.

Complex to us, perhaps, yet omniscience is not a property of god but rather it is God as explained by the article I posted in my previous post and here, divine simplicity explains omniscience as per below:

God is omniscient, then, not in virtue of instantiating or exemplifying omniscience — which would imply a real distinction between God and the property of omniscience — but by being omniscience. And the same holds for each of the divine omni-attributes: God is what he has as Augustine puts it in The City of God, XI, 10. As identical to each of his attributes, God is identical to his nature. And since his nature or essence is identical to his existence, God is identical to his existence. This is the doctrine of divine simplicity

It's logically impossible for existence to be created. — Relativist

You're absolutely, positively undisputedly correct...yet existence is created everyday. Just depends on what existence you're talking about. It's kinda a philosophical thing and a laboratory thing. Both the scientist and the philosopher are trying to get past the "Big Bang". Personally, I think the three or four or whatever dimensions we exist in don't allow for that revelation. Both the philosopher and the scientist will be speculating on that without any "proof" as long as we exist (if we can agree we exist - lol).