Is it more logical to believe that a 'God' will eventually..

[Arising_uk]

Don't tell me, this 'entropy' is a thing with intention and purpose as well? But don't get me wrong, nowhere have I said we might not create something that we worship as 'god/s'. As thats what we've done already. Its that you try and tag it to a 'purposeful', 'destined' evolution that I'm disagreeing with.

[attofishpi]

Don't tell me, this 'entropy' is a thing with intention and purpose as well? But don't get me wrong, nowhere have I said we might not create something that we worship as 'god/s'. As thats what we've done already. Its that you try and tag it to a 'purposeful', 'destined' evolution that I'm disagreeing with.

The problem here is that you misunderstood the following:-
The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.
The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural pre-destined universal outcome.

By pre-destined....im not suggesting there is an intelligent entity comprehending and willing an outcome. What im saying, as an anology, is hit a cue ball into the set pack of pool balls and you are going to know the end result. Provided you hit that pack at the same velocity, the same angle etc etc....put life into the equation, and the cause and effect universe starts to complicate beyond prediction.

[Typist]

The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.

What is the "natural progression" that is interrupted by intelligent life?

Why does intelligent life interfere with this natural progression?

[attofishpi]

The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.

What is the "natural progression" that is interrupted by intelligent life?

Why does intelligent life interfere with this natural progression?

I used an analogy of a cue ball striking a set pack of pool balls.

Think of it as the big bang...cause and effect...resulting in the universe prior to life. You could predict the end result knowing the conditions of the pack and the velocity, angle of the cue ball. Once life evolves...and the more intelligent it becomes, it no longer exhibits simple cause and effect physics, it starts to exert free will.

Therefore...intelligent life interferes with this natural progression.

[Typist]

Once life evolves...and the more intelligent it becomes, it no longer exhibits simple cause and effect physics, it starts to exert free will.

Therefore...intelligent life interferes with this natural progression.

Ok, thanks. I see what you mean now. As example, someday we may adjust the orbit of the Earth to achieve some desired effect etc.

Perhaps we can return to your original post and explore it further.

Conscious awareness must eventually evolve into an overiding intelligent system, created by such intelligent beings in the first place.

This is interesting. So are you saying intelligent life will inevitably evolve in to what we might call gods? That is, intelligent life would eventually move beyond adjusting the orbit of planets, and take control of the entire cosmological system?

This intelligent system, lets call it 'God' projects reality by feeding five senses of input to each lifeform.

This is similar to what humans have tried to do on Earth, that is, take control over all physical and biological processes? As example, there is now talk of re-engineering the weather to compensate for global warming, and genetic engineering is well under way etc.

Is this what you mean, but on a much larger scale?

[Arising_uk]

The problem here is that you misunderstood the following:-
The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.
The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural pre-destined universal outcome.

No, I think I understood what you say as you are saying it again, i.e. "natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.", and is a "pre-destined universal outcome" that something has ordained in some sense.

By pre-destined....im not suggesting there is an intelligent entity comprehending and willing an outcome. What im saying, as an anology, is hit a cue ball into the set pack of pool balls and you are going to know the end result. Provided you hit that pack at the same velocity, the same angle etc etc....put life into the equation, and the cause and effect universe starts to complicate beyond prediction.

Is this the case? Not that I don't agree with determinism and Laplace's demon but complexity theory appears to show that we can't calculate such a thing given the way the material world is. Now whether this is due to something like quantum perturbations or fluctuations or the world is just not perfect I'll leave to the physicists but it means that your analogy fails in this instance as we can't 100% know the outcome, so it need not be life that makes the difference but material reality.

[Arising_uk]

I used an analogy of a cue ball striking a set pack of pool balls.

Think of it as the big bang...cause and effect...resulting in the universe prior to life. You could predict the end result knowing the conditions of the pack and the velocity, angle of the cue ball. Once life evolves...and the more intelligent it becomes, it no longer exhibits simple cause and effect physics, it starts to exert free will.

Therefore...intelligent life interferes with this natural progression.

Okay I think I understand what you are saying now. One thing, in philosophy we're still discussing this 'free-will' thing, as in the main it occured because of religion and our wills conflict with the idea of 'gods' will, but you could say that it applies to material determinism and our feeling of freely being able to will. Schopenhaur puts it like this, 'Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills' or 'Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.' or 'Man can control what he wills, but not how he wills.' or 'Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot control what it is that he wants.'. So you could say we are determined and there is no such thing as 'free will', just will.

Would you say the other animals have this effect upon the universe? As they appear to have the freedom to will as well.

You make the assumption again that there is a 'natural progression' towards intelligence and whilst I agree that there may be a 'progression' towards complexity why could intelligence not be a one-off or very rare occurence? Although I do agree that what is new in the universe and is not a simple cause and effect relationship is the existence of language and meaning. I also agree that what might be new with respect to evolution is that due to our intelligence we may start guiding it to our own needs and wants, so 'gods' maybe.

[chaz wyman]

How does there being no evidence of purpose make us assume there might be any at all?

We agree there is no evidence of purpose as of today.

Please demonstrate your ability to know what science might discover 1,000 years from now.

You seem to be making a claim that you are in a position to know that thousands of years of future scientific inquiry will not uncover a purpose. Is that correct?

You are a waste of space; a waste of oxygen

[Typist]

Hey Chaz!

Please demonstrate your ability to know what science might discover 1,000 years from now.

[chaz wyman]

Hey Chaz!

Please demonstrate your ability to know what science might discover 1,000 years from now.

What you are assuming is that science will 'discover' something that it is not even looking for.
You are assuming that it will discover a thing it has already rejected.
"Purpose" is a thing that used to be believed in. Not only is it not the sort of thing science can find, it is a thing long rejected as a method of looking. You might as well ask; "Please demonstrate your ability to know that science will not discover unicorns and fairies in the future."
The more you type, the more stupid you appear.
That you keep coming back for more is testament to your thickness; you don't even know that you are stupid, and that makes you doubly so.

[Typist]

What you are assuming is that science will 'discover' something that it is not even looking for.

I'm assuming no such thing. If you'd like to debate me, please debate me, not creations of your imagination. Thank you.

You are assuming that it will discover a thing it has already rejected.

So are you proposing that the scientific thing to do is to reject the possibility of god(s) now, even though we have no idea what hundreds or thousands of years of future scientific exploration might discover?

That is, based on NO EVIDENCE and NO KNOWLEDGE of what these future discoveries might be, we should come to conclusions now?

"Purpose" is a thing that used to be believed in. Not only is it not the sort of thing science can find,

Please provide your evidence of this claim that purpose is something science will never be able to discover, if it is there.

You might as well ask; "Please demonstrate your ability to know that science will not discover unicorns and fairies in the future."

Ok, I will ask that too then. Please demonstrate your ability to know that science will not discover unicorns and fairies in the future.

The more you type, the more stupid you appear.

Do you realize that calling people stupid is the theme of almost all your posts, whoever you are talking to?

That you keep coming back for more is testament to your thickness; you don't even know that you are stupid, and that makes you doubly so.

I'm simply doing what you are doing, asking for the evidence that supports your claims.

Please tell us how you know what science will or won't discover over the next 500 years. Please provide proof of your claim to know such things.

[Arising_uk]

... That is, based on NO EVIDENCE and NO KNOWLEDGE of what these future discoveries might be, we should come to conclusions now?

Yes, its called scientific knowledge. That science admits their knowledge is possibly revisable in the light of evidence is a fact, that such as you use this to say we don't know anything is the closet theist dream.

So you think science will find heaven and a 'god' somewhere? If science finds this 'god' do you think the theists would accept it as their one? Would you? Given that it'll be a material thing.

So if we build one will you accept that as your 'god'? Would the theists?

[blackbox]

...it no longer exhibits simple cause and effect physics, it starts to exert free will.

Saying it is easy, but have you wondered how this could possibly occur? It seems impossible to me. Prior to starting to exert free will, every characteristic, every attribute, every desire, motivation, ability, of this entity has been caused. Every single thing this entity has ever done, down to the most trivial event (thoughts, eye twitches, whatever) have all been determined. Then suddenly, you say it is able to start operating freely, no longer utterly subject to all the causes that previously culminated in its behaviour. What happened to all these causes that controlled/determined everything up to this point? Why did they lose their causative power? What now is doing the causing, where did this new thing come from, and what has it got to do with the entity we're talking about?

If an entity acts according to its nature, according to how-it-is, which it had no freedom to shape in any way, those actions cannot be called free. And there doesn't seem to be an alternative... since the idea of an entity acting in ways other than how-it-is is absurd.

[Typist]

Yes, its called scientific knowledge. That science admits their knowledge is possibly revisable in the light of evidence is a fact, that such as you use this to say we don't know anything is the closet theist dream.

Do I have shoes on right now, or not? Yes, or no?

There's no way you could possibly know the answer.

So a sensible person will say....

"I have no idea whether you have shoes on or not."

Given that there's no way you could possibly know if there are gods or not, why not simply say...

"I have no idea if there are gods or not."

[attofishpi]

Yes...i was waiting for someone to make a point in relation to my posturing on free will. I had considered what yourself and Arising_uk are pointing out, in the past, and had a similar discussion on a forum far far away.

That aside. My point still remains that as entropy increases, intelligent beings with the capability to do so, will find ways to extend their consciousness, their 'existence' as it were. And one way of doing this is to abandon the inefficient material self.