Making the Case for Belief

5wize

Well-known member
Let me ask you something before I answer your question. If the singularity from which "all things" arose was intelligent in addition to being extremely ordered and powerful would you call it a "supernatural" entity or just a "natural" entity?

In anticipation that you will say that an intelligent singularity is not possible, let me remind you that the best science in the world acknowledges the singularity from which "all things" come from was extremely ordered and powerful. I propose from science itself (and not necessarily religion) that the singularity was also intelligent, for in our universe, intelligence and cognitive capacity correlate with complexity.

So tell me, presuming our origins came from this powerful, extremely ordered, plausibly intelligent entity, which scientists call the "singularity" at the beginning of our cosmos, what would YOU describe it as, "supernatural" or "natural"?

It really makes no difference to me what label you choose as long as WE agree on what WE are talking about. Labels, titles, and names carry baggage, negative or positive connotations, and people react to names and titles before they even understand what they mean.

So far our discussion is based solely on the empirical evidence, science, facts, and reason. I have not suggested anything, yet, that is a theological proposition. Would any a-theist, scientist, or educated person reject the notion that "all things" came from a single, complex, powerful, plausibly, intelligent thing?

Now, to answer your question.

Yes, I accept the evidence in front of us, that the origination of our souls in a lifeless universe made such lifeless universe alive again which can be characterized as a "resurrection". It matters not to me whether you call it a "supernatural" or "natural" process.

From Merriam Webster
Resurrection -- : the state of one risen from the dead

Obviously, the weakness in my proposition is that the whole body remains as a corpse, nevertheless, alive, --in us. Which means that for the aliveness in us to continue, the whole body must also be returned to perfection, ordered, and whole. And that is exactly one evidence-based theory for the end of our universe.

The point here is that the theological idea of "resurrection" can be correlated with natural processes. Taken as a whole, the life of the universe (from "beginning" to "end", from "first" to "last"), its "body" (or corpse), soul(s) (us), and spirit (virtues: love, good, truth, etc.) could arguably be characterized as "supernatural" and part of a Master Plan.

What plan would that be? (Here it becomes theological). For God to return a good life to his Son (creation) in us, and save us to become his family for eternity. We truly are the sons and daughters of God which makes us extraordinary!! We are his handwriting in the universe.
I think we would disagree on the meanings of words. Of course I think you are coopting common language in too liberal a way and you'll say I'm not using enough imagination.

1. We know intelligence is a product of biology. There is no example of intelligence outside biology. I won't say its impossible. I'll say only that it's easy to project that which we know to be intelligence onto things that do not possess the prerequisites of our entire definition of the term.
2. The attempt to say that powerful order and intelligence is one and the same is to allow that any patterned "thing" can be tagged as intelligence. You can't just pick a singularity as the only viable subject of such a broad declaration. You get into trouble right there.... Snowflakes are smart!!!!
3. The term "Entity" implies this biological sentience.
4. Resurrection is a term to describe that which was once living coming alive again after death. It is mis-appropriated in your example. The world was believed to be lifeless prior to life teaming within it.
5. No scientist that isn't attempting to prove intelligent design thinks complexity implies intelligence. In those cases they are already begging the question.

So with that out of the way, as far as your question "So tell me, presuming our origins came from this powerful, extremely ordered, plausibly intelligent entity, which scientists call the "singularity" at the beginning of our cosmos, what would YOU describe it as, "supernatural" or "natural"? - I'm already off the farm with the way you bend common language to beg the question.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I think we would disagree on the meanings of words. Of course I think you are coopting common language in too liberal a way and you'll say I'm not using enough imagination.

1. We know intelligence is a product of biology. There is no example of intelligence outside biology. I won't say its impossible. I'll say only that it's easy to project that which we know to be intelligence onto things that do not possess the prerequisites of our entire definition of the term.
Intelligence is a product of complexity. Lettuce has no intelligence but it is alive. Humans, primates, dolphins, have intelligence because we are much more complex organisms. Go back 13.8 billion years and you find the most complex thing in existence...EVER!
2. The attempt to say that powerful order and intelligence is one and the same is to allow that any patterned "thing" can be tagged as intelligence. You can't just pick a singularity as the only viable subject of such a broad declaration. You get into trouble right there.... Snowflakes are smart!!!!
Snowflakes are neither intelligent nor complex. See above comment.
3. The term "Entity" implies this biological sentience.
Applying reason to what we DO know about complexity and intelligence in the cosmos, then the most complex thing in the history of the cosmos would presumably be self-aware and intelligent. It is logical whether or not it offends your a-theistic sensibility.
4. Resurrection is a term to describe that which was once living coming alive again after death. It is mis-appropriated in your example. The world was believed to be lifeless prior to life teaming within it.
And, your point is....? The cosmos was lifeless before it became alive in us...hence, "resurrection". What part of this do you not understand?

5. No scientist that isn't attempting to prove intelligent design thinks complexity implies intelligence. In those cases they are already begging the question.
I said nothing about "intelligent design". That is a label that needs defining before I know how you are applying it.
So with that out of the way, as far as your question "So tell me, presuming our origins came from this powerful, extremely ordered, plausibly intelligent entity, which scientists call the "singularity" at the beginning of our cosmos, what would YOU describe it as, "supernatural" or "natural"? - I'm already off the farm with the way you bend common language to beg the question.
Dodging the question. Got it!
 
Last edited:

5wize

Well-known member
Intelligence is a product of complexity. Lettuce has no intelligence but it is alive. Humans, primates, dolphins, have intelligence because we are much more complex organisms. Go back 13.8 billion years and you find the most complex thing in existence...EVER!
We agree on this. Intelligence is a product of complexity.
Snowflakes are neither intelligent nor complex. See above comment.

Applying reason to what we DO know about complexity and intelligence in the cosmos, then the most complex thing in the history of the cosmos would presumably be self-aware and intelligent.
Nope. You haven't made any case for that.
It is logical whether or not it offends your a-theistic sensibility.
non causa pro causa fallacy. Because some complex things are intelligent not all complex things are intelligent, including the complex cause of all other intelligent complexity or non-intelligent complexity.
And, your point is....? The cosmos was lifeless before it became alive in us...hence, "resurrection". What part of this do you not understand?
Point is your definition of resurrection does not fit you philosophy - at all.
I said nothing about "intelligent design". That is a label that needs defining before I know how you are applying it.
I know you didn't. I'm saying that the only "scientists" that assume intelligence from complexity that I know of are ID proponents. You are now a member of that category of theist for me. Not an ID proponent, but you now possess the same begging the question fallacy that complexity implies intelligence that they do in your your philosophy.
Dodging the question. Got it!
I'm saying I do not accept your premises to have either of the answers you gave me make sense with regards to what I believe. Fallacy of false dilemma.
 

bigthinker

Well-known member
You are conflating belief and unbelief. YOU have to be honest enough admit that if belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to you, then you have to put forward something you believe to be true in reality against what we believe about Christianity.
No. what you say is interesting but incorrect. I don't have an opposite but "true" belief that replaces a theistic belief. Rather, I simply lack something the believe has. For example, one person has a glass of milk; the other does not.
Nothing requires the second person to have a glass of lemonade in lieu of milk. The glass doesn't have to have anything in it; and you don't have to have a glass.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
We agree on this. Intelligence is a product of complexity.

Nope. You haven't made any case for that.

non causa pro causa fallacy. Because some complex things are intelligent not all complex things are intelligent, including the complex cause of all other intelligent complexity or non-intelligent complexity.

Point is your definition of resurrection does not fit you philosophy - at all.

I know you didn't. I'm saying that the only "scientists" that assume intelligence from complexity that I know of are ID proponents. You are now a member of that category of theist for me. Not an ID proponent, but you now possess the same begging the question fallacy that complexity implies intelligence that they do in your your philosophy.

I'm saying I do not accept your premises to have either of the answers you gave me make sense with regards to what I believe. Fallacy of false dilemma.
Your using too many big words, —“non causa pro causa fallacy” and “fallacy of false dillema”. Its like there is an atheists apologetics course somewhere and many of you end up here to practice what you learned?
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Your using too many big words, —“non causa pro causa fallacy” and “fallacy of false dillema”. Its like there is an atheists apologetics course somewhere and many of you end up here to practice what you learned?
Why do you believe as you do? What you believe is obviously not the same as what either atheists or Christians believe - so how did you come to your beliefs?
 

5wize

Well-known member
Your using too many big words, —“non causa pro causa fallacy” and “fallacy of false dillema”. Its like there is an atheists apologetics course somewhere and many of you end up here to practice what you learned?
Wait... Let me get this straight Docphin5. The terms I present are the standard names of false arguments that you can plug into google and discover that they are common and appropriate when debating arguments. You come up with the following: "actual resurrection of souls within a dead body, the universal corpse comprised of matter" and I'm somehow pegged with not connecting very well linguistically or in the realm of ideas?
 
Last edited:

5wize

Well-known member
copy that.
so basically making things up?
Unorthodox Hebrew/Christian mythology. The orthodox version is Judaism. The heretical version is Christianity. Actually Gnosticism was viewed as Heretical Christianity as well in the early years and chased out by the church fathers.
 
Last edited:
Top