How does a universe care, precisely?
Is this another joke, Sâmkhya? (Forgive me for asking.)
SilentSoliloquy is on the right track, as I see it. (and anyone else whose like-minded response I did not read)
Typically the word ‘care’ is used as a kind of proxy or ‘metaphor’, as the atheist would not say either that the universe ‘cares’ or does not ‘care’. It’s a false dichotomy because it’s predicated on the assumption that the universe either can or does hold any ‘affective’ or ‘intentional’ states at all.
Is this meant to be a logical inference? Perhaps intelligence thrives on adversity or elsewise requires this ‘friction’, and that is why it is so likely?
I could think of dozen other speculative explanations, and really all we are doing is sleeping in a bed which we have already made, if you catch my meaning.
Also, keep your eye on this;
So it would seem that pantheism is a better explanation anyway, based on your reasoning.
…
Also consider that ‘likelyhood’ is not derived apriori in this case, I don’t think. I don’t even know what such a derivation might look like. As such, it is probably necessary to give a quantitative definition of ‘care’ - meaning that, the more intelligent life there is, the more the universe ‘cares’, and vice versa. Now keep your eye on this;
(1) ‘Therefore, the likelihood of intelligent life in this universe is low.’
(1a) ‘Therefore, the likelihood of intelligent life is high.’
(2) ‘In this universe, there is actually intelligent life.’
Actually to the best of my knowledge, the likelyhood of life is considered quite low, though of course there is much disagreement here. If it is low then, on your reasoning, this means that ‘care’ is low as well. Now the question becomes; 'how much care is needed to ‘prove’ the existence of a Creator? Thence the problem of using a quantitative argument. Which I imagine is why you switched from probabilities to actualities - i.e. to avoid this difficulty. But as I said above, you kind of need this argument to make your conclusion stick.
If you remove the false dichotomy in what appears to me to be at least an attempt at a metaphysical argument, then you will be forced to conclude that there is nothing about the existence of intelligence which can be forced into the service of the conclusions you seek - namely that the condition of the possibility of intelligence, is a ‘Creator’ of some description.
What I really want to know though is this; Why do you post this kind of stuff, Sâmkhya?
Regards,
James
Thank you for taking the time to rephrase things, but what makes you think I don’t understand the argument? All respect, it seems instead you’ve not understood my response.
It is by analogy that I say that the universe “cares” about us. It amounts to saying: “we are meant to be here”, or “the laws of the universe depend on our existence”.
Because I found this intriguing argument somewhere on internet and I wanted to test it.
Regardless of the validity of the argument, couldn’t the enormous number of stars and planets just as easily explain the fact that there is intelligent life in the universe?
Your last premise is merely that there is intelligent life in the universe–Not that there is an abundancy of intelligent life, just some. Now, when one takes into account the sheer size of the universe, the likelihood of some intelligent life existing in the “godless” universe could very well rival the likelihood of some intelligent life existing in the “god” universe.
So the argument you presented isn’t sound.
The universe as a “self” might not implicitly “care” in the way you state it James. But it might have inherent in it a pattern or system if you like, that inevittably moves toward intelligent life. In this sense, we could indeed say the universe cares about intelligent life.
If the universe motion toward intelligent life is inherent in it, and it’s not simply a random action, then I could see what you’re saying James. That in this inherentness of it, it doesn’t care or not care, because in order to care, it would have to be interested in something outside itself, and in the definition of the universe this is impossible. And then there’s also the fallacy of applying human characteristics to the universe, as it is a self. I don’t know if the scientific proof of everything being “one”, makes this any less or more true or not, but it sure does make you think. But anyway, the universe caring, could be said is true, if referenced with my first paragraph.
I know I used the specific example of the universe ‘caring’ as a focal point of my initial response, but it’s more than that. Specifically, it’s the premise, ‘If atheism were true, then we should not expect life to emerge’. This is what specifically ‘begs the question’ in the logical sense in that we’re led to assume life would not emerge in a creator-less universe; hence, the example in the link above where the premise, ‘Politicians cannot be trusted,’ equates to the premise, ‘If atheism were true, life would not emerge.’
From link:
Do any of you people care that this argument doesn’t matter at all, or are you just amused and enjoy arguing about nothing? (Not that there’s anything wrong with that…)
Well, if your contention is that “this argument doesn’t matter,” I could disagree. Would that argument also ‘not matter’?
Saying an argument doesn’t matter and saying an argument is fallacious is pretty much the same thing, just others are discussing the argument, opposed to posting a non-contributive one-liner.
If I make an important comment that is ignored I don’t think I should have to cut and paste it and repeat it down in the thread. People should be aware because they are reading the thread. That’s my assumption anyway.
I disagree. I could tell you that there are invisible insensible leprechauns chanting magic spells all around you but the magic spells don’t affect you and you’ll never find out that this is the case for all eternity, and I could be correct. But even if I’m correct it doesn’t matter because by my own statement there is no way that this state of affairs will ever affect you. And what applies to true statements applies equally well to true arguments, since arguments are statements that relate statements.
I think that the sort of arguments Samkhya posts are of the deist variety, and that deism makes no difference in people’s lives. For practical purposes a deist is indistinguishable from an atheist. Therefore the arguments Samkhya makes do not matter and he should stop making them, channeling his energy towards something that makes a difference.
If you had read the thread, you’d realize I’m making an important contribution: I’m suggesting that Samkhya and those discussing the argument channel their energies in more productive directions. I’ve done the whole God proof thing backwards and forwards and it’s a waste of time. I’d like to convince others of the same.
Well aporia, that brings the question, is it possible to make a difference at all? What constitutes a good positive difference? I personally am starting to lean more towards Non-Action. It seems like too many of us are busying our selves around, accomplishing a whole lot of nothing. We’re always looking toward to the future, therefore we never live in the present.
“posting a non-contributive one-liner.”
I must tell you the more narrowed down, the most contributive. It is the cause being found beneath each effect. Not that every one-liner is a cause, no, but at times it is exactly.
“Non-Action”?
Without this action we’d have no future, you’re active in one way or another in either circumtance of wanting to be or not, you can’t stop time.
You’re unfamiliar with the ways of non-action. When I say non-action I don’t mean not doing anything at all. I just mean not doing anything unless it is necessary. And necessary can be brought to an extremely narrow set of activities. This means I’m not busying myself around, thinking that if I’m not doing anything, ie. not being productive, that’s it’s OK. Most people get restless when they’re not doing anything “productive”, but if there’s no pressing matters that need to be attended to, I have no problem just sitting doing nothing.
I understand, but it’s the possibilities of the future in these actions. You’ll have an outcome directed on what you’re doing or not doing in the present. You could be thinking about it or not, but it doesn’t change what’s going to happen based on the present.
torrentfields,
I sympathize with your desire to sit around and do nothing. I have certainly done that before. But eventually you get bored and want to do something, and you wish that the time you spent getting bored was spent finding something interesting to do. That’s my experience, take it or leave it.
I find a lot of things interesting to do, most of it is thinking. But the reason I like to sit around and do nothing (meditate) is simply because it’s extremely refreshing after doing something all day (work). I’m not saying if I had the free time I would do nothing all the time, I quite enjoy exploitation of the senses, especially writing music. Either way, I would still practice non-action in the sense of not trying to force anything that needn’t be forced, or in other words be a “busybody”. It’s quite odd those people that are always trying to help, are usually getting in the way isn’t it?
Somthing being exstant is a singular fact,
it being created or happening by chance are 2 methods of oragin.
Proof also is besides existance of,
because proof is based on our limited preseption / logic as humans.
I do not need proof of God in order to live;
i do not need to believe in / deny God.
An opinion is an opinion, a theory is a theory.
Lets stay focused on the long term of our own species shal we?
I am cautiously theist but feal that worrying about God is often a waste of time and an obsession… sorry if i sound discurageing to those who are religious, make no mastake, i love you all, atheist and theist.
(Strange how there is only 1 earth… 1 visable planet with organic life…)
It’s a joke if by Reason I attempt to show theism to be true, because reason is faith, so reason has no more value than faith in the Great Unicorn.
Hi
When does something become intelligent life?
How can you compare the universe to a noun-god? That would be like me comparing you to a rock.
EZ$