Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[MrRubix]

Just decided to re-kick this into effect just for grins.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Marcus, I am not a christian. I'm a deist. I've said this before, believing in God doesn't imply in being religious. I just believe in an intelligence, that's all. I'm not creating any dogmas nor anything.
When I asked why you were an atheist and not an agnostic, your answer was that "God isn't plausible", but you never actually explained why an intelligent origin wasn't plausible. It's really not a matter of probability.

And when I asked "what if you are wrong?" I wasn't referring only to this particular subject.

Not why I posted the video. It's just the same response to anyone who asks "What if you're wrong?" There is a difference between "being wrong" even after you have all the evidence and "being wrong" via "being unaware of a counterargument's implications." The former scenario is the best that we can do.

My argument is that intelligence is not necessary to describe anything. Not only that, but the concept of intelligent design shoots itself in the foot.

For complexity to arise via creation, there needs to be a creator even more complex -- but this just compounds the problem. Evolution solves the problem of complexity by explaining how an intelligence is not necessary from the getgo, but rather an emergence of simplicity. We can explain why humans are the way they are. You can take a single-celled organism and show how, given the impact of the environment over time, certain DNA mutations survive more readily than others. This process is slow and gradual for us, but nevertheless it explains how you can take something simple and constantly hammer and change it until it becomes far more "complex."

Earth creatures, in this case, are the result of "necessary conditions." Earth just happens to have the right kind of environment with the right conditions conducive to life and our particular type of being over time. There are likely countless other environments conducive to all sorts of life types. Some of those emerging civilizations will have intelligence, some will not. It all depends on environment, which is a concept applicable to us since life is a concept that depends on environment. We just happen to be in the environment conducive to an emergence of intelligence. There is far more evidence to support this concept than there is to suggest that "something intelligent must have been at the wheel."

The reason I say "God isn't plausible" is because we already have a very deep understanding (with evidence) as to why things are the way they are, and none of those explanations require a God. Usually the people who say "You could be wrong" are likely putting too much weight on that probability. The analogy I like to use there is one of a coin: You've flipped it 100,000,000 times. All heads. A theist would say "I have faith in the tails!" as opposed to the more plausible solution "It's probably a double-headed coin." We have enough to describe things without the need for a God. To truly understand the underlying arguments and yet still put faith in a God is to be putting your faith in an extremely implausible and improbable notion. It'd be like walking out of an airlock in space and expecting there to be air. We know this is silly but only because we understand why. Many people don't understand the "why" behind the question of God versus no God because it's a fairly in-depth concept.