Dgc1808 said:
o_O.Q said:
Dgc1808 said:
|
o_O.Q said:
"None of them point to a god"
they point to intelligence... observing the world as a human its quite clear that regardless of the diversity in nature laws that exhibit a great complexity are generally created by us
therefore complex laws from our experience are directly associated with intelligence do you disagree with that ascertion?
"You simply state that you don't understand how they can be how they are without god"
i clarified this above according to our experience of the world complex laws appear to only be formed by entities that exhibit intelligence
" The problem is your knowledge and nothing else."
well there is no information that contradicts my assertion or in other words no one can definitively prove that the universe was not created so...
|
1) They do not point to an intelligence. These "laws" (I'm not even sure I'd call them laws) you're referring to are just descriptions. Nothing points to them being proscribed by anything other than us as a way to desribe our world. The examples you gave demonstrate you're just making whimsical ascertions. Hot and cold are opposites? What does that mean? There's just more heat or less heat. If one room is 10 kelvin and another is 150 kelvin which one is the hot based on your experience? What is the opposite of 2 degrees Kelvin based on your human experience?
2) "there is no information that contradicts my assertion or in other words no one can definitively prove that the universe was not created so"
There's your problem again. "My creator fits here and you can't prove to me that my creator doesn't exist". Nothing contradicts Last Thursday-ism or Solipsism either. I guess those are both right.
|
"These "laws" (I'm not even sure I'd call them laws) you're referring to are just descriptions. "
yes laws, rules etc are generally descriptive since they describe conditions that processes function by that should be obvious
" Hot and cold are opposites? What does that mean? "
"There's just more heat or less heat."
lol it means just what i posted the opposite of something is the lack or reversal of it or in other words when there's less of something
when there's less light you move closer to darkness
when there's less happiness you go closer to sadness
when there's less good there's more bad
when there's less freedom you go closer to slavery etc etc etc
"If one room is 10 kelvin and another is 150 kelvin which one is the hot based on your experience? What is the opposite of 2 degrees Kelvin based on your human experience? "
this is why i said that there is a spectrum between two opposing forces or in other words there's a scale between the two
"There's your problem again. "My creator fits here and you can't prove to me that my creator doesn't exist""
i backed what i said up by stating that complex laws are generally creations coming from intelligence if you disagree with that that's cool
|
"when there's less happiness you go closer to sadness" - No. A Non-happy person isn't necessarily a sad one.
"when there's less good there's more bad " - No. Because of obious.
I can on with that but my point originally was that this "law is opposites" wasn't clearly explained/defined or just flawed. A person completely void of joy isn't a sad person. They're just not happy. This point is irrelevent now because what I want to talk about this:
"yes laws, rules etc are generally descriptive since they describe conditions that processes function by that should be obvious" and "complex laws are generally creations coming from intelligence"
Are these "laws" just the result of an intelligence attempting to describe observations, or are they caused by an intelligence? If you're post was making no attempt to ascert causation (which is what I assumed you were trying to do), then your title makes no sense. You'd have to point out how some intelligence caused these "laws" to take the forms that they do, not just how some intelligence describes or interprets them. At the moment, it just seems like you're pointing things out and saying an intelligence did it with no explanation as to how we would know this.
|
"A person completely void of joy isn't a sad person. They're just not happy."
well they are neutral balanced on the equilibrium point between the two
the line there in the middle means neutral or equilibrium
". You'd have to point out how some intelligence caused these "laws" to take the forms that they do"
well my conclusion is based on the fact that we as humans pride ourselves on being above animals because of our capacity to use our intelligence to come up with constructs
as i said earlier we wouldn't expect to find any significant answers to anything by talking to animals or rocks or putting our head to the ground and hoping the earth whispers back or whatever because we unlike the animals and inanimate objects around us have intelligence
therefore we expect that mathematical constructs for example are exclusive to entities that exhibit intelligence otherwise you'd have me believe that rocks have more intellectual capacity than humans as they have been able to do what we will never be able to acheive with regards to creating the universe
afterall if there is no intelligence above us then it would have be the matter of the universe itself that caused it to form as it did meaning that rocks are smarter than humans
