Universal Intelligence (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Sunday, September 20, 2009, 20:31 (5541 days ago) @ George Jelliss

I wrote: At least we know from the outset that the question of how a universal intelligence got here can't possibly be answered, because if it exists, it's on an entirely different plane from us, and we're simply not equipped to investigate it.-George responds - and Matt agrees with him - that this "is just outright mysticism, verging on theosophical higher planes nonsense. This is the god who "works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform."-You've actually taken my comment out of its context. It was written in response to Matt's preference for the alien race theory over the theory of a mystical driving force. I was pointing out that the alien theory would not solve the problem of how we got here, since the alien race would face the same questions as we do. -However, your subsequent arguments provide rich material for discussion. You go on to say that the idea of a universal intelligence is "a pure fantasy for which there is no scientific evidence." You then ask: "how does it carry out its designing? Does it think "let there be light" and there is? If it is on a higher plane where it cannot be investigated by us worms, what is the point of such a hypothesis? Can its existence even be proved?"-First things first. I agree that there is no scientific evidence, and that its existence can't be proved. Belief in the god theory requires faith. That is one reason why I'm not a theist or a deist. The theory that chance can put together the ingredients for reproduction, life, consciousness, emotion etc. also has no scientific evidence to support it, and until there is proof (if there ever is), belief in the chance theory also requires faith. And that is one reason why I'm not an atheist. -We seem to have different starting-points. Correct me if I'm wrong, but yours seems to be that the god theory is beyond credibility, and the chance theory is far, far, far more likely. Mine is that the chance theory demands far, far, far too much credulity on my part, and therefore I can in no way discount the god theory. Since you are not even prepared to consider the god theory, you close your mind to any evidence that might support it. I don't mean that rudely ... I have the utmost respect for your views, because I know you may be right. I'm simply trying to establish the difference between our approaches.-What evidence is there, apart from the complexities needed to create physical life? Everything connected with our spiritual, emotional, intellectual, artistic, psychic experiences. Since I can't believe in chance origins, I have to consider (not the same as believe in) design, and since design entails some sort of outside intelligence, I can make a link between it and all the above. These experiences suggest the possibility ... no more than that ... of something beyond the material world as we know it. You see "no reason why the existence of such a thing should not be possible of investigation." I don't see how its origins can be investigated. Its existence can. But not by science (at the moment), which can only deal with the material world as we know it (at the moment), and you do not accept any other form of evidence. -How does a universal intelligence carry out its work? That ties in with our discussion on identity. I wanted to know the source of the will that controls the physical material of my body. One answer to your question might be that the universal intelligence has the same control over the physical material of the universe as my will has over my body. It doesn't think, "Let there be light", but manipulates the material in such a way that one blob of matter burns, and another revolves round it. What is the point of the hypothesis? It provides an explanation of the various unsolved mysteries that I've listed. It's no more and no less irrational than the belief that life and all its manifestations and developments initially came about through a vast series of coincidences. There is, however, one interesting difference. We can all see at a glance that belief in some sort of god requires an enormous leap of faith. The leap of faith required by belief in chance can easily be glossed over by clever use of language and a coating of scientific authority. Dawkins, for instance, would no doubt howl with derision if you told him, "God is the creator of life." Has the scientific world howled with derision at his statement that "Evolution is the creator of life"? If not, why not?