Big Bang Birthday: gravitational waves; language and logic (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, April 14, 2014, 17:17 (3876 days ago) @ David Turell

DHW: ..... If the generator is the eternal energy you call a universal intelligence, it was NOT designed. But if God as energy doesn't break down, why should energy simply as energy break down? Stable does not have to mean intelligent. A stable but non-conscious first cause universe-generator is no less feasible than a stable conscious first cause universe-generator! -DAVID: The complexity of the quantum particle zoo underlying the workings of this universe, and the rules by which they work strongly suggest (remember we can't prove anything at this level of thought) a complex pattern of planning, and therefore intelligence as a source.-dhw: I have criticized the passage above for what seems to me to be faulty reasoning. You have substituted your own argument, which is not the point I was dealing with.-DAVID: We are at cross-purposes. You are substituting your view of the possibility of eternal energy without intelligence into the discussion. The eternal stable energy to create the complexity we have requires intelligence. We are back to our old battle. I'm simply looking at reality and extrapolating backward in time. Just like not being able to get something from nothing, you can't get a working complexity with many component parts without intelligence. Otherwise we are back to enormous odds for chance.-We are indeed completely at cross purposes. You recommended an article which I thought was badly argued. In particular I criticized the author's equation of stability with intelligence (which focused on the avoidance of a breakdown, not on complexity),and your response was to talk about the complexity of the quantum particle zoo, which was not the target of my criticism. I also complained about the misuse of 'ex nihilo' and your comment supported my complaint. Finally I objected to the author's use of "fact" to describe his opinion ... and you agreed this was "overstated". We are not "back to our old battle", because I have no quarrel with the argument that "working complexity with many component parts" suggests design. I ended my post: "It is not a good idea to defend an article with so many flaws in its reasoning and such a manifestly unscientific conclusion! How would you respond if Dawkins claimed that his conclusions were a fact?" Pax?