How come when high IQ people see the design...

I just said atoms don't have life, you illiterate ignoramus. The fact that complex, ordered, intelligent things are made up of simple, disordered, non-intelligent things is what I just argued. Try to keep up.

>at the very base of matter is a stupidity, randomness, and impotent blindness
ya, that's why it couldn't have made itself or anything of harmonious structure or form.

It would always remain blind, stupid and formless chaos.
The universe had a beginning this is indisputable. The universe is a conglomeration of time, space and matter, it's cause would have to #1 be unlike those things and #2 be supremely intelligent able to organize and generate and sustain all those impotent, inert, and mindless pieces.

>ya, that's why it couldn't have made itself or anything of harmonious structure or form.
No that's not why you fucking moron. Physics, chemistry and biology have explained this. Does water form a crystal because it's intelligent? Does life evolve according to a design? Does a market work because someone plans it out?
Again your retarded intuition does not trump actual investigation and analysis.

>new properties and complexities cannot emerge because I'm too dumb to understand how
kys
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

>Does water form a crystal because it's intelligent?
Hydrogen and Oxygen didn't create themselves or the Laws they obey, even before we get to molecules coming together to form a cohesive structure we need to ask where they came from, how is H20 even possible, and why are there Laws dictating the behavior of matter, time and space??
Clearly these non-intelligent, unconscious, blind "bits" didn't make themselves or write the Code they are subservient to follow.
Something else is responsible for their coming into being and the Laws they follow and the order and structure they actualize, something unlike matter/time/space. something not finite and conditioned and blind/random.

>emergence...things just emerge out of other things ;)
begging the question.
suffers from the same problem as any other naive materialism, and results in an infinite regress of inexplicable randomness the further down you go.

>kys
sorry materialism is an incoherent and unjustifiable worldview, has no foundation, no need to be angry when it gets challenged.

By admitting that something complex can emerge from something less complex, you negate your own argument that the complexity of the universe had to come from something more complex.

>how is H20 even possible, and why are there Laws dictating the behavior of matter, time and space??
Laws of time and space are simply or observations of how they behave. If they had no behavior they wouldn't exist. Why would they not exist?

First of all, define life, then prove that atoms don't have life and prove that humans do have life.

>brainlet thinks that you can actually prove something with science
Do you even knows what empiricism is?

>results in an infinite regress of inexplicable randomness the further down you go.
What is wrong with infinite regress?

>sorry materialism is an incoherent and unjustifiable worldview, has no foundation, no need to be angry when it gets challenged.
So which part of that article was incoherent? Which part of physics is wrong?

The only unjustified worldview here is your assumption that intelligence underlies everything when all the evidence points to intelligence as a product, not a source. If we were designed intelligently and intelligence was not emergent, we would not be able to find flaws in our own design. Yet our bodies are full of flaws, only explainable by the blindness of evolution.

>Positing the existence of natural laws.
>Implying natural laws are the end of the question.

Isn't that weird that our world is governed by laws, what are laws? Why are they there instead of nothing? Where do the laws come from, and what are they?

Not saying there has to be a God, but to say that physics has all the answers is absurd.

So you think atoms are alive? Do they reproduce? Do they eat? Do they grow? Do they die?

Literally all of physics is wrong because its just a model of reality not an actual statement of truth like a logical proof. Seriously get off of this board if you don't already know this.

>Physics is wrong because it's not a logical proof.
Neither was that a logical proof, so by your argument, you're wrong. Still waiting for you to prove physics wrong.

Is this a legitimate response to my question? Did you define life? Did you prove that human have life and atoms don't?

Well it's not wrong per say, it's just not correct. I admit my error.

>Is this a legitimate response to my question?
Was your question a legitimate response to what I posted?

If you think atoms are alive then you are denying reality. If you deny that order can emerge spontaneously then you are denying reality. Thus your argument necessitates that you sent reality.

If the world's scientists got together and decided to define life in such a way that it included atoms in is definition, then yes, I would say that atoms are alive. Right now what is defined as life and not life is clearly arbitrary and could change at anytime. Unless, of course, you're smarter than every scientist in the world and have a definition of life that's not arbitrary or based on any assumptions...

>Right now what is defined as life and not life is clearly arbitrary and could change at anytime.
It's not arbitrary relative to what we're discussing. Calling an atom life would not refer to the concept which we use the word life to describe. Life exhibits a certain level of complexity which its subunits do not. My point still stands that given we observe emergence, the contention that the universe had to originate from something more complex/intelligent is false. And considering our only experience of intelligence is as an emergent phenomenon, the proposition is not only unnecessary but also unlikely.

Sure I never claimed that, but I don't see how that adresses the infinite causal link that would naturally arrive at some singularity or unmoved mover.

>What is wrong with infinite regress?
initial conditions would never be satisfied for anything. so an object or moment or phenomena would never be able to exist.

the present moment wouldn't even be able to exist.

Just like one can't go from now to the end of an infinite future, one can't traverse an infinite past and reach this moment in time.
A beginning is required. its initial and sufficient conditions must be satisfied. That which satisfies those conditions can't be "like" it, (i.e temporal/material/spatial/ignorant) otherwise we get the infinite regress problem again.
So the first cause has to be transcendent, causeless, unlike the world it causes.

>infinite
>eventually arrives
Nah

The real answer is probably much weirder than some childish skydaddy projection of human intelligence, or there is no answer, or it's unknowable.

You are the perfect example of sub 100 iq in the 21st century.

There is an infinite amount of time steps, yet we eventually arrive at some next point in time. Also you can even begin to predict what that truth of the universe is, especially with empiriciam, which will always be infinitely flawed.

>initial conditions would never be satisfied for anything. so an object or moment or phenomena would never be able to exist.
Totally wrong. In infinite regress, there is a finite amount of steps between any two steps.

>Just like one can't go from now to the end of an infinite future, one can't traverse an infinite past and reach this moment in time.
From which point in time can't you reach the present in finite time? Any point in time is a finite amount of time away. There is no starting point an infinite amount of time away from the present because there is no starting point period.

Infinite regressing is completely consistent.

can't* even predict

>There is an infinite amount of time steps
Infinite amount of time steps from what? You realize that in order to measure the time between two steps you need a first step right? Any step in the past is a finite amount of time away. Any integer is a finite distance from 0, even though the integers are infinite.

>Also you can even begin to predict what that truth of the universe is, especially with empiriciam, which will always be infinitely flawed.
More nonsense assumptions. Why do you assume this layer is the one we won't peel back? Either it can be peeled back or we will never know, either way you haven't contributed shit. You're worse than "wrong".

OP, ur being gay and god doesn't like when ur gay

idiot

>In infinite regress, there is a finite amount of steps between any two steps.

That's not the problem, the problem is there is no origin or initial point of departure, the distance from infinite past to the "first step" would be infnite, so the first of those "two steps" would never be actualized or caused to exist, so traversing the first step to reach the second step would be impossible. No event would occur everything would just be a potential or possibility, not an actuality.

>There is no starting point an infinite amount of time away from the present because there is no starting point period.

because it has no starting point it never actually starts to exist. because it has no starting point time can never pass or flow, change can't even occur. Objects can't be actualized. Nothing can happen.

Logic and intuition reveal the necessity of a starting point, a beginning to the universe. Science seems to confirm such a starting point around the big bang event.
Infinite regress or a "universe with no beginning" is internally contradictory.

>That's not the problem, the problem is there is no origin or initial point of departure, the distance from infinite past to the "first step" would be infnite
Again, the only way to measure time is to have a starting point. So there is not "infinite time" from anything. Any point in the past is a finite amount of time away. Your argument fails completely, because it assumes there is a starting point infinitely far away when there is no such thing, by the very definition of infinite regression.

>because it has no starting point it never actually starts to exist.
Yes duh, but not starting to exist doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If something had always existed it never started to exist. You're just applying naive intuition again based on how something sounds without actually thinking about it. Why do you keep doing this?

>because it has no starting point time can never pass or flow
Again, if time is always flowing, then your claim falls.

>Logic and intuition reveal the necessity of a starting point
I just showed the flaw in your supposed logic and intuition. There is no necessity for a starting point. You're playing naive language games.

So is there an integer infinitely far away from 0?

Some people are too stupid to overcome the basic human nature to attribute some reason for things, despite an absence of knowledge

Accept that you don't know anything

>The universe has no starting point
>Yes duh, but not starting to exist doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Look if we say t=0 is the big bang then its possible for time to pass, conditions to be satisfied and the universe to change and reach its current configuration after 14 billion years passes.

If we deny a starting point, deny a t=0 and replace it with t=negative infinite past then the universe has no starting point, it would never be able to attain its current, actual configuration. It would take "infinite time" to reach the present if you replace t=0 with t=negative infinite past.

You can't just arbitrarily say "that's wrong because between 2015 and 2017 it's just a finite amount of time! see 2 years! easy!!" this misses the point entirely. It's a brainlet response.
Time moves forward, things change from point A to point B, but point A didn't just appear out of nothing, it required previous conditions, and those conditions required previous conditions, and so forth.
In an infinite regress no condition would EVER be satisfied, not A, not B, not C...so it doesn't matter that the distance between 2015 and 2017 is finite, because 2015 would never attain.

Fact is you can't traverse an infinite past, in fact you can't even BEGIN to traverse it, because no moment is even actualized.

High IQ is basically just good pattern recognition. People with better pattern recognition tend to fit patterns to everything, regardless of whether there is a pattern.

>universe never began to exist
>what is the big bang
lmfao

given infinite time there is no randomness. only long term expected values. therefore the universe is pre-determined.

Lmao, you sound like an economist.
>M-my theory works in t-the long run!

the universe isn't created simply because a being who was capable of such a thing would never do it.

>how come when high IQ people see the design, beauty and contingency in the universe they logically realize that a transcendent designer is responsible for crafting order out of chaos?
Well given that you are a very high IQ individual I'm sure you wouldn't make a claim based on your feelings rather than empirical evidence (especially on a science board), so let's see some sources.

wow
wtf, I hate an eternal universe now

You've got it backwards. If a designer created the universe, and the designer is eternal, then they must have created chaos out of order and entropy should naturally trend towards order, not disorder. Think about it. If the designer is all that existed and then they created the universe, then the natural state of existence is infinite complexity, perfection, and he created a universe of chaos, thus we should fall inexorably complexity, not towards the heat death of the universe.

Unless it wasn't designed, in which case, what we see makes sense.

If it can be peeled back then there will just be another layer, if not, then or knowledge is limited. Either way we will never attain perfect knowledge of any empirically studied subject. I should be clear, this doesn't make science bad. Its probably the most useful method of understanding the physical world around us, but it's absolutely useless for these more metaphysical concepts like the ideal or perfect knowledge. Also how am I "worse than wrong"? That phrase didn't even make sense, especially in regards to the fact that I made no knowledge claims

If the universe has a starting point we can say it took 14 billion years for you to be born.

If the universe has no starting point, and the past is infinite, we'd have to say it took infinite time for you to be born. Which is nonsense, infinite time can't "pass" by definition.

Basically if the universe had no beginning there would never be enough time for you (or anything else) to come into existence. The fact that you were born, the fact that any thing exists spatially/materially implies the universe had a starting point, a t=0.

The only way to redeem the infinite regress universe is to claim time is some sort of illusion, the past doesn't really exist, we're just in some sort of "infinite now", time is circular, basically use fuzzy hindu/buddhist logic...aka bullshit.

The dissolution of the universe is also an orderly and designed process, submitting to the Laws of disassembly, whatever they may be -- it doesn't happen by randomness or blind-luck.
Just like how people age and die, aging is a fine-tuned process, even if it hurts and seems chaotic and undesirable to us.

>not appreciating statistical convergence
Why are you even on this board anyway?

Are we having a Zeno's paradox debate on Veeky Forums? Did they not teach you kids about convergence?

It's impossible for anything with attributes to be described without imposing the illusion of order, that doesn't make it a designed process. Imagine a ball floating completely motionless in an empty void. Now imagine it spinning. Not much difference, but now it has attributes like axis of rotation, a plane of rotation, angular momentum, etc etc. Being able to descibe those attributes doesnt mean the ball has order. There are no laws of disassembly, there is only the consequence of interacting forces. That is, by definition, chaos.

Even a ball in a void requires some power greater than it to actualize it, to structure it, to design the physical and geometric Laws it must conform to.

>It's impossible for anything with attributes to be described without imposing the illusion of order,
Are you saying that the appearance of order never implies actual order but is only some sort of illusion?? Why would this be the case?

Try not to confuse concepts with realities, things can only have attributes *if* they exist. Existence is not an attribute, it's a condition which allows attributes to apply.

I'm saying that language has the quirk of presenting disordered things in a ordered way. One should be careful not to assume order simply because something can be described with language.

>One should be careful not to assume order simply because something can be described with language.
Be that is it may, do you not see order in the universe, beautiful, precise harmony all around Take your bodily needs out of the question for a moment, and look upon it as an immortal, indestructible observer...
What chaos is there? To me it is a fantastic, finely tuned machine. How could such a thing come about?

>Existence is not an attribute, it's a condition which allows attributes to apply.
Whether its a condition or attribute it still has to be "satisfied" by something other than itself. Things don't self-create, self-design and self-sustain themselves. A ball can't make itself no more than a baby or atom can make itself.

>If a designer created the universe, and the designer is eternal, then they must have created chaos out of order and entropy should naturally trend towards order, not disorder.

At what point in time within an eternal beings mind does beginning even begin to be comprehensive enough to "start" anything?

The answer is that the concept of an eternal being is fantastical and incohesive.

I guess an IQ of 141 makes me brainlet teir. Well shit, i better go buy a tractor i reckon.

It's called cosmos. It's the theory of that everything is placed in order. Even that nucleus on your dickhead. I can see it you can see it. You can teach monkeys to see it. Giving brainlets a chance to man. Let's say you can have all the money you can think of or nirvana. It's a choise. Haven't we all felt abit stupid here an there. The question is stupid to. If you are that smart you should know. I am taking my time to ease your confusion. Fucking brainlet question even the more i think of it. You for real man. Cancer.

>What chaos is there? To me it is a fantastic, finely tuned machine. How could such a thing come about?
Not him, but the whole chaos and "existence is random" thing is a creationist meme. If it was truly chaotic, I might believe in a creator. It isn't a matter of chaos - it's a matter of inevitability. It's less a magical maelstrom and more a crystal. The only difference between the universe and a crystal, is that the structure is so much smaller and simpler that you can trace all the causes and effects, at least until, much like the universe, ya get down to those levels with hidden variables - even then, you know the laws and the probabilities.

A universe designed for us by an omnipotent and omniscient being would not involve so much of it being hostile to us, empty, and so much of it being redundant. I mean, even if you just look at life on the planet, so much of it looks so much like every other. If there is a divine creator, he's hella uncreative... Or maybe just really gets hung up on that whole two eyes, mouth, nose, and four limbs thing. A universe created by such a being wouldn't need logic to function - it truly would be chaos - everything would just work by the magic of its will. No need for this procedural generation crap we see everywhere.

Now, if the creator is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, that might be more convincing, given what we see around us, but that's just the "we're being simulated by hyperdimensional aliens playing Ultra-Minecraft" argument. While I won't claim there's no one that takes that crap seriously, there's certainly a lot less people that do. Even if it were the case, unless they are just trying to fuck with our minds (as some tinfoils do indeed claim), this universe is just filled with too much anti-life, and is self-destructive to boot - there's no logical reason to make a simulation like that with life as a primary goal. In such a vast machine, we're either a side effect, or play some extraordinarily minor role.

>Making fun of the backbone profession of any human society

You are living proof high IQ does not equate to intelligence.