Back to Theism

[LukeMC]

It feels like you're clutching at straws now.

---

Show one instance of non-existence. Of course, you can't, that would be absurd. Everything that is has a form of existence. Again, it's how you define it.

Would it be fair to say that a sample of carbon shows complete non-existence of curium? Curium does not exist within the sample and is therefore non-existant upon it. The universe displays non-existance; therefore the universe is non-existant. Of course not! The universe displays non-existance; therefore the universe displays non-existance. It also displays existance. It displays intelligence (humans) and displays non-intelligence (my sample of carbon). For any one trait you can choose, the opposite is true. Quite simply, your point logically should say "The universe displays intelligence in some places and non-intelligence in others. From these premises the universe cannot be defined as intelligent or non-intelligent, merely the stadium in which intelligence and non-intelligence are bred".

Good point. If there is you and an apple in an infinite void, and you die, what happens to the apple? Remember: it's an infinite void, you're the only one in existence besides the apple, and then you die. What happens to the apple?

You've changed the criteria. Initially you said a universe which displays intelligence is intelligent hence God. By destroying the intelligence, one would have destroyed the criteria by which we define the universe as a god. The new statement would be "the universe does not display intelligence. Therefore..."
But in your apple example, you suppose the apple to be seperate from the human, which wasn't the case with intelligence. Intelligence exists only within living creatures and therefore by destroying them, intelligence as a whole must go with them. The apple is not a part of the human, so if you destroy the human the apple remains.

---

I've hidden my points because I really don't feel anybody should have to read through the repetitive drivel i'm coming out with. To sum up everything in that text, I outright deny the claim that the universe in and of itself is an intelligent agent- it merely contains agents which in and of themselves are intelligent. The universe may be described as intelligent in parts, but not as a whole. I have a foot, but I am not a foot. Parts of me display foot-like properties (2 parts to be precise) but they do not constitute the entirety of "me". I am not a foot. Of course, I could say that the majority of my parts are not intelligent, and therefore "I" am not intelligent- only parts of me are. That is fine, and could lead into a discussion of self-perception, but it isn't necessary in this argument.