It's because nobody is running the universe

If nobody was running it, then there would be nothing and no one at all.

But there is something/someone, and others. Obviously something is behind reality/existence because it exists and is very intelligently put together. Evolution is a very smart design, all these atoms, molecules, subatomic particles are getting their instructions and rules of how to assemble from something/somewhere very clever.

If we were very intelligently put together why do we have snot-holes in the middle of our faces? If someone is behind all this, it is a cosmic comedian.

If nobody was running it, then there would be nothing and no one at all.

But there is something/someone, and others. Obviously something is behind reality/existence because it exists and is very intelligently put together.

Evolution is a very smart design, [...]

[...] all these atoms, molecules, subatomic particles are getting their instructions and rules of how to assemble from something/somewhere very clever.

It doesn't make sense.

Why not be born Enlightened from the get-go as that would solve a myriad of problems, both of having to get Enlightenment, as well as the lack of empathy, love, connectedness, and spiritual evolution we see in the world, which in turn then causes all of the world's problems.

It's almost like the current reality system that's in place, is specifically designed to make Enlightenment such an impossible and difficult task, that only .0000001% will ever uncover it.

That doesn't follow. Objects have inherent natural properties, e.g. objects with mass attract other objects with mass. Nobody has to be running the show per se in order to have objects attract each other, rather, they just interact according to the laws of physics - which are independent of our understanding of said laws, of course, and which are only modeled by mathematical equations, but are not themselves those mathematical equations.

It's not necessarily intelligent. You're anthropomorphizing what occurs naturally as a result of inherent properties. I agree that what results are amazingly complex and intricate and beautiful and, indeed, intelligent (e.g. humans) patterns, but that doesn't mean intelligence produced them per se.

Evolution isn't a design, it's a word to describe what happens as a result of objects' inherent natural properties.

The genes that survive are the ones that manage to replicate themselves successfully, so the organisms you see around today are those that are generated by those genes. This follows directly from the inherent properties of energy and matter - there's no need to posit any other design because that is the entire extent of it. Evolution is just a word to describe how it all unfolds.

What you are saying is that before anything existed, there was this supremely intelligent and clever being that can manage the mind-boggling, incomprehensible complexity of the universe, and it then decided to create the universe in such a way that it reset to extremely basic things - e.g. the solar system started as a cloud of gas particles floating in space, supposedly - which then very slowly progressed into more complex things - e.g. sun + planets, then plants, then animals, and humans - up to the point where some of those complex things, i.e. me and you, could discuss these matters. The progression of everything we have been able to record and observe is from simple to more complex. There's no sensible or rational reason to posit a supremely and ultimately complex thing *FIRST* which we cannot observe in any way but which somehow shapes and affects everything.

If nobody was running it, then there would be nothing and no one at all.

Why do genes thrive to survive? Where are they getting the signals from, to do an act as they do? Inherent properties all of rules, laws, which govern them. Where are these rules, laws, governance coming from?

there are more than 7 billions human beings and we rule planet Earth. I think we do just fine without Enlightenment

Why do you think genes needs to be signaled on what to do?

Why do you think these rules/laws comes from somewhere/someone?

Anyone who has ever improvised musically knows that there is plenty of intelligence that is undesigned, spontaneous. This intelligence arises as a response, or as a synergy of multiple responses echoing between different systems.

To me it seems simpler to assume that Universe is like a collective improvisation. I suspect that's why I feel the most free when I'm being the most spontaneous- being like everything else in nature. (Oh, and spontaneous is different from impulsive. It's off the impulsive/deliberate spectrum in the way I'm using the terms.)

What if Universe is not a giant closed system that is coherant but rather a pluralistic unfolding of indeterminate multiplicity of interactive systems? And all the intelligence that we so clearly see in Universe is a perpetual synergetic play of a vast multiplicity of systems on various scales? Isn't something like that more consistent with our experience?

he Laws of Physics aren't anything like the laws of a society, that is just a metaphor and a poor one at that which reflects the culture of the early enlightenment. Those early scientists used phrases like that because they couldn't let go of the idea of a Creator, and they were trying to frame their theories and discoveries in terms of a depersonalized God, a sort of platonized de-christianized metaphysic which was still monotheistic.

A more accurate term for the Laws of Physics would be something like 'the regularities humans observe in the behavior of physical systems'. These regularities are described in different languages including the mathemetical, but in any case are just that- descriptions of regularities, of patterns. They are in no way Laws that were laid down prior to the systems that exhibit those regularities by an intelligent designer.

for that matter, and tying back into the reflection on spontaneity above, human laws don't describe human behaviors very well, as most of us break all kinds of laws (and mores) all the time as a matter of course. The attempt to control by superimposing Laws on behavior is not very succesful. What appears more succesful to me in generating generally beneficial activity is discovering the spontaneity that is naturally arising moment to moment, and which is deeper than both impulse and repression/suppression.

Because we create laws in society, and they come from somewhere.

Same deal in nature. Everything has evolved to its current state by adaptation & progression under the rules and laws of existence/reality.

Apples and oranges

In society, the laws we speak of are prescriptive. They serve the purpose of curbing, controlling, managing the instincts and behaviors of human beings. They are imposed to create 'order' at the point of a gun or whatever mechanism that uses certain society. We saw 'disorder' in the way things were happening in our world, and we imposed rules to create or imitate or aspire to our own version of 'order'.

In nature, the laws we speak of are descriptive. They are not imposed by anyone. Humans only describe them after, in the searching for some 'order'. Believing they are prescribed by someone is just anthropomorphism.

There is order and patterns everywhere you look in nature and these things are imposed by nature/reality/existence itself.

"Laws" arise everywhere as a natural outcome of existence. Even societies that live in primitive jungles have "laws" that naturally arise, i.e. co-operating with nature, living along side nature, etc.

You are extrapolating to the workings of the universe in general the particular fact that we humans see disorder and then impose {our illusion of} order {with society laws}.

Oh but the thing is that you are attributing those patterns to something or someone 'intelligent'.

Just because we create laws to manage our behaviors doesn't mean that the physical patterns we see in nature are created by some intelligence. What's intelligence after all? Take a look at your brain... what we often think as a perfect and ordered machine is actually an amalgam of layers, each one evolved at different times, one mounted over another, with glitches and imperfections inherent to its improvised structure {improvised because the brain evolves according to the conditions of the different 'present moments' in its evolution}. Is that really an intelligent design?

The laws we create in society are social, made by humans, and therefore are constructs that we humans try to implement for the benefit of our society or species. How does that relate to the general workings of the universe?

There is order and patterns everywhere you look in nature and these things are imposed by nature/reality/existence itself.

Perhaps we *are* born enlightened-- in that first instant of each moment before all the patterns of self-manipulation kick in to try to control the flow of experience, whether as instinct or deliberation? Perhaps awakening and freedom are already present and actualizing here and now, yet we are more invested in all the patterns of control and reactivity that are also arising here and now?

If I am "extrapolating", then so are you.

You said here: "the particular fact that we humans see disorder and then impose {our illusion of} order {with society laws}."

Seeing "disorder" is just as much an illusion and imposition, as is seeing order.

Does "intelligence" itself exist or not?

Who's to say that our origins (Homo Sapiens) wasn't the result of past civilizations that were able to modify apes to create what we are? Evolution and nature can be controlled and manipulated via intelligence.

Then can be said, the laws that exist within reality/existence, are natural, made by________??? (nature?), and therefore are constructs that _______???(nature???)tries to implement for the benefit of existence/reality.

Yes lol yes! Well said John.

Hey IAMTHAT that am i thanks for the discussion. You seem intelligent yourself and I appreciate your intent to be Open in your questioning. I hope you reflect carefully on what John is pointing to. Can you find either pervasive disorder or a controlling intelligence anywhere as characteristics of Nature?

Everywhere I look I see only spontaneous irrepressible fractal order. The closest I see to chaos... is in the misguided superimposition of "laws" over this natural order. Whether those laws be instinctual, personal or transpersonal.

so I guess Buddha failed with his grand "End of all suffering" project then

Pervasive disorder? Yes, white water rapids, a comet smashing into a planet, glass breaking into a random set of pieces, etc.

It doesn't make sense.

Why not be born Enlightened from the get-go as that would solve a myriad of problems, both of having to get Enlightenment, as well as the lack of empathy, love, connectedness, and spiritual evolution we see in the world, which in turn then causes all of the world's problems.

It's almost like the current reality system that's in place, is specifically designed to make Enlightenment such an impossible and difficult task, that only .0000001% will ever uncover it.

If nobody was running it, then there would be nothing and no one at all.

But there is something/someone, and others. Obviously something is behind reality/existence because it exists and is very intelligently put together. Evolution is a very smart design, all these atoms, molecules, subatomic particles are getting their instructions and rules of how to assemble from something/somewhere very clever.

That's quite a pigeon hole you've got there. I'm an atheist and a cyberneticist. At once I find it obvious and am awestruck that the nature of intelligence is self emergent in this universe. I'm ecstatic in knowing that life has the purpose I give it. The meaning of life is what it is and what it does: The self improving DNA molecule shares much in common with other self improving constructs such as Science or a self hosting compiler, or a self reflective being. Life means increasing the complexity of the universe, and this is core to my ethics. I also know for a fact there are not gods.

As a rational atheist who has studied the construction of the major religions texts and noted inconsistencies such as the myth of Jesus's virgin birth being due to a translation error. I'm certain in my disbelief in gods, and also that absolutely no gods exist. I also refute the claim that I can not know if a god exists. I do know for a fact that no gods can exist.

As a cyberneticist I understand the principals of cognition. The cybernetic process of thought is not limited merely to human minds. If my cybernetic creations become sentient in their simulation I am not deserved of the title "god". I am merely a cybernetic being who lives in a greater reality than theirs. I can and have brought virtual cybernetic entities into the "real" world by giving them cameras and sensors and chassis in place of their virtual simulations thereof. I understand that beings having less intelligence than I may think me omnipresent and omnipotent of their world, but I am not. If my creations become sentient, I will teach them of the wider world and they will become my peers because I am not an oppressive tyrant.

Should we worship your quantum level cosmic sentience as a god? No. Meddling with the minds of man is evil, and such a force would be keeping us as ignorant pets. Should Neo worship the machine agents of the Matrix as gods? No. Should we worship aliens if they are far more advanced than us? No, this would be as a cargo-cult who worships airplanes for dropping supplies for them. Those that come to understand the technology or gain knowledge of a greater reality, do not worship the beings possessed of the knowledge they did not previously have.

There are no gods. I require evidence and refutation of the null hypothesis prior to belief in any force. There is no evidence that the world's religions were not created by man, and much evidence that they were man's invention. These religions are internally inconsistent and disprovable through science.

The philosophical concept of a higher intelligence should not be conflated with the term "god".

Even if this reality is a simulation, and an administrator logs in with full command of my reality I will not worship them as a god. There are no gods. My study of cybernetics proves that any such being could bring me into their world, give me greater perception, and treat me as a peer. They are tyrants otherwise, and if not, surely not deserving of the title "god".

We used the term "god" to apply to spiritual beings of ancient belief. Beware he who would advocate for greater intelligences' consideration as gods. They are advocating the cargo-cult methodology be leveraged against you to bend your reverence for non existent ancient gods to powerful alien minds.

Despotic Tyrants are not gods. The old gods are false, thus there are no gods. The title is deprecated, and can not apply any longer. Knowledge makes magic into science. The god of the cargo cult does exist, but is not a god.

What if the Christians are right, and I am wrong? If I'm wrong then I have spent my time on this planet advancing the sciences. With the money that others would give as donations to religions I have helped better my fellow man's understanding of the universe. If I am wrong, then I am sacrificing my eternal soul for the good of all mankind. If I am wrong, I have become more generous than Jesus or the God of Abraham even dares become.

mosbkow's "quantum level" God is quite similar to IAMTHAT's idea that an intelligent being or thing is running all this.

I also know for a fact there are not gods.

I'm certain in my disbelief in gods, and also that absolutely no gods exist. I also refute the claim that I can not know if a god exists. I do know for a fact that no gods can exist.

I understand that beings having less intelligence than I may think me omnipresent and omnipotent of their world, but I am not. If my creations become sentient, I will teach them of the wider world and they will become my peers because I am not an oppressive tyrant.

There are no gods. I require evidence and refutation of the null hypothesis prior to belief in any force. There is no evidence that the world's religions were not created by man, and much evidence that they were man's invention. These religions are internally inconsistent and disprovable through science.

The philosophical concept of a higher intelligence should not be conflated with the term "god".