You paint a disappointing but 'fair enough' landscape sir! :lol:
The brilliant Bob Ross' actual son Steve has taken over from his father:

My third premise says that if a universe has as one of its essential features the inevitability of life, then it has as concomitant essential features intentions and teleology. — ucarr_180 Proof

This leap is unwarranted. Assuming that "life" is an "essential feature" of the universe, on what grounds – factual basis – do you claim Intelligent life (ergo "intention and teleology") is inevitable? — 180 Proof

The logical_factual grounds for my claim are simple:

The earth tells us life in our universe is possible.
That matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed tells us our universe is eternal.
Combination: within the environment of time never ending, all possibilities will be realized*
Life, a realized possibility on earth, has always been an inevitability

*Sidebar - the combination above shows great promise as an explanation for the presence of evil within a moral universe

Evidentially, metabolic self-replication does not entail metacognition, or life –/–> intelligent life (i.e. "intention & purpose").

Evidentially, life –/–> intelligent life (i.e. "intention & purpose"). — 180 Proof

Evidence that life leads to intention & purpose:

Precepts: 1) Intelligence is motion organized; 2) Motion organized within sentients is adaptation; 3) Adaptation is sentient control of environment; 4) Sentient controlled environment selects for mutations that improve adaptation to environment >

Example: homo sapiens develops agriculture:

1) agriculture configures a network of plants that, eaten together, metabolize as a compound nutrient that facilitates accelerated brain synapse firing within the cerebral cortex;

2) accelerated brain synapse firing within the cerebral cortex upwardly evolves into birthing of children who cogitate plant hybridization methods that deepen the nutritional value of a plant diet;

3) offspring of hybridizing parents have increased average lifespan;

4) offspring of longer lifespan parents, continuing their parents hybridizing science, develop written signification of hybridizing methods, then, one of them gets a spinner mutation that empowers him to a level of intellect wherein he foresees literature in its broader complexity ;

5) literate offspring of signing parents, expanding the literature, create records of architectural methods for conceptualizing, designing and building shelters from the elements;

6) literate offspring born within designed shelters expand literacy to encompass purpose and design within the sciences and humanities;

7) offspring born into a literate, sub-divided academia develop the foundation of a complex, diversified society

Conclusions:

1) In a time unlimited universe, life implies upwardly evolving sentience

2) Upwardly evolving sentience implies motion organized and internalized as intelligence

3) Intelligence implies an upwardly evolving environmental control that selects for mutations that upwardly evolve in the upwardly evolving environment

4) Where there is life and time unlimited, there is intelligence, environmental control, genetic mutation selectivity, God-consciousness, convergence of God-consciousness and sentient-driven science, transcendence-as-consciousness

Nonsense. :roll:

1) Intelligence is motion organized; — ucarr

Clouds, waterfalls & digestion, for examples, are not "intelligent".

2) Motion organized within sentients is adaptation;

Primate digestion does not adapt and yet viruses do adapt.

3) Adaptation is sentient control of environment;

Again, viruses adapt.

4) Sentient controlled environment selects for mutations that improve adaptation to environment

This might be breeding but it is not natural selection. Read Ernst Mayr. Read Richard Dawkins. Read Stephen J. Gould. Read E.O. Wilson. Read Daniel Dennett. :shade: wtf

Nonsense. :roll: — 180 Proof

This is your characterization of my statement considered as a whole.

You say nothing about the relationship between the four precepts and the seven examples meant to instantiate them. What do you think about the evidential value of these conjectural examples?

1) Intelligence is motion organized;
— ucarr
Clouds, waterfalls & digestion, for examples, are not "intelligent". — 180 Proof

Can you cite examples of ratiocination not teleologically configured?

2) Motion organized within sentients is adaptation;
Primate digestion does not adapt and yet viruses do adapt. — 180 Proof

Can you cite examples of primate teleology (wrt to intention) not rational?

3) Adaptation is sentient control of environment;
Again, viruses adapt. — 180 Proof

Can you assess the evidentiary value (wrt to motion-as-intelligence) of homo sapiens control of the environment that extracts, refines and reconfigures resources including petroleum, copper and iron ore?

4) Sentient controlled environment selects for mutations that improve adaptation to environment
This might be breeding but it is not natural selection. — 180 Proof

How do you assess this claim: Natural selection controls sentient morphology that, in turn, controls genome population (a factor influencing genetic mutation) via breeding. In summation, breeding is complex natural selection.

What are your thoughts in reaction to this conjecture: The precepts herein put you in mind of a field of networked inquiries encapsulated by Mayr, Dawkins, Gould, Wilson and Dennett.

What do you think about the evidential value of these conjectural examples? — ucarr

IMO, your un/mis-informed "4 precepts" are incoherent or false (as I've pointed out), so their "evidential values" are negative (à la e.g. candy cotton mountains, five-sided triangles, disembodied minds, etc). Again, go inform yourself, ucarr, by reading the rigorous (popular) studies on natural selection, etc by Mayr, Dawkins, Gould, Wilson et al.

IMO, your un/mis-informed "4 precepts" are incoherent or false (as I've pointed out) — 180 Proof

incoherent - a disjunction between a conclusion and its antecedent premise

false - a conclusion that connects to its antecedent premise by means of a violation of the rules of inference

Clouds, waterfalls & digestion, for examples, are not "intelligent". — 180 Proof

Primate digestion does not adapt and yet viruses do adapt. — 180 Proof

Do you deny that ratiocination is motion organized?

I repeat this question because your above quotes don't cite an example of ratiocination-as-motion without organization.

Evidentially, metabolic self-replication does not entail metacognition, or life –/–> intelligent life (i.e. "intention & purpose"). — 180 Proof

You have edited your claim so that it now includes reference to asexual reproduction by unicellular organisms. This claim, while it bolsters the supposition simple life forms are not intentional, fails to counter-claim my claim and you know it.

Why have you edited your original claim? You have done so because, after reading my sequence of seven examples of evolution itself evolving into sentient evolution, you feel the need to better protect the presumption evolution is non-intentional_non-teleological. You feel this need because you understand evolution evolving into sentient evolution makes sense.

Here's the proof you understand sentient evolution makes sense:

4) Sentient controlled environment selects for mutations that improve adaptation to environment
This might be breeding but it is not natural selection. — 180 Proof

As your understanding of my thesis sharpens its focus, you again feel the need to defend non-intentional non-teleological evolution by pointing out it's not natural selection. Not, it's not. It's higher-order evolution i.e., sentient evolution. Breeding for genetic adaptation to environment is followed by genetic engineering and bio-tech. There can be no doubt this is evolution brimming over with intentions and teleology.

Now, as you are seeing, my central mission: In this conversation, I want to examine whether or not positing evolution in place of a creator amounts, in the end, to the same thing as positing a creator in place of evolution. speaks to the understanding that there is a chain of logic leading from simple life forms to sentient control of evolution as genetic engineering_bio-tech and beyond. This, as I've been claiming, is an evolving simulation of pre-historic, natural God by sentient-controlled evolution.

1) Intelligence is motion organized;
— ucarr
Clouds, waterfalls & digestion, for examples, are not "intelligent". — 180 Proof

You strategically ignore the participle: organized.* This you do because, understanding the thrust of my seven examples, you know your counter-argument is limited to the period of evolution where life forms
are sufficiently simple for easy accommodation of your defense of non-intentional_non-teleological evolution.
*Organized equals sentient-controlled.

Your cursory, simplistic, would-be counter-examples have you pretending not to understand what you do understand.

Do clouds, waterfalls and digestion display organized motion? Trackable motion and organized motion are two different things as, the tracking of trackable motion imparts order to it.

Motion organized within sentients is adaptation;
Primate digestion does not adapt and yet viruses do adapt. — 180 Proof

Primate digestion does adapt. The radical mutation of primates, in contrast to that of viruses, proceeds much more slowly, so it's easy to pretend slow mutation is no mutation.

Adaptation is sentient control of environment;
Again, viruses adapt. — 180 Proof

Viruses adapt by high-jacking some of the reproductive apparatus of higher life forms. This is a case where higher life forms' control of environment, because it powers viral adaptation, produces a negative effect.

In order to continue your protection of non-intentional_non-teleological evolution, you have to demolish my quartet:

The logical_factual grounds for my claim are simple:

The earth tells us life in our universe is possible.
That matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed tells us our universe is eternal.
Combination: within the environment of time never ending, all possibilities will be realized
Life, a realized possibility on earth, has always been an inevitability

The earth tells us life in our universe is possible.
That matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed tells us our universe is eternal.
Combination: within the environment of time never ending, all possibilities will be realized
Life, a realized possibility on earth, has always been an inevitability — ucarr

Exactly what in these 4 sentences, provides evidence for a god with intent?
I see no significant or compelling evidence at all.
What role does entropy, at the scale of the universe, play in your notion of a universal scale of intent and teleology. Do you think the posited heat death of the universe is correct? If not, what role does 'change' play in an eternal matter/energy (doing work) to assemble 'stuff' and then disassembly occurs, (via entropy) over time. If entropy exists at a universal/cosmic scale then, this 'intent' you describe, would have to be unaffected by entropy, and therefore exist outside of the cosmos. This is as impossible as a square circle, which suggests to me that your 'intent' cannot exist 'outside' of a cosmos of energy/matter. If it exists within the cosmos then it must be subject to entropy.
Entropy within an eternal cosmos would point to a cyclical model, would it not? If the cosmos is cyclical then your notion of god must become a cyclical god which entropy reduces over time back to it's constituent parts. Why is this wrong in your opinion?

Exactly what in these 4 sentences, provides evidence for a god with intent?
I see no significant or compelling evidence at all.
What role does entropy, at the scale of the universe, play in your notion of a universal scale of intent and teleology. — universeness

Entropy is the enemy of inspiration.

Yes. We can beat back the slow dirge of our death-march to the grave; we can blunt the certain falling apart of our flesh and bones; we can put to rout the grim reaper as falls the scythe.

The decline of system into increasing disorder, viewed times too many, fuels the sullen hearts of cynicism, despair and resignation. The multitudes, biting the bullet, refer to this as growing up and getting a real job. In other words, when inspiration dims and decline into death looms, with the final black curtain flapping its cackling, irreverent tongue, entropy, that over-arching demon of the material universe, shoots its arms of victory straight into the air.

Back on point.

I struggle to rejigger my quartet; you know all of the words; here’s some different words.

We are life.
Nothing ever gets destroyed permanently, so be of good cheer.
Long shots, given the long lifespan of our universe, refuse to be impossible
We are life then, now and forever

I’ve been preparing a new conversation.

My title asks: Does Entropy Exist?

I will post it tomorrow. I hope you’ll read it and weigh in.

We are life.
Nothing ever gets destroyed permanently, so be of good cheer.
Long shots, given the long lifespan of our universe, refuse to be impossible
We are life then, now and forever
I’ve been preparing a new conversation.
My title asks: Does Entropy Exist?
I will post it tomorrow. I hope you’ll read it and weigh in. — ucarr

Life exists!
Entropy exists!
Matter/energy can assemble into human life.
Death will cause that life to disassemble and the individual consciousness/identity/personality/character IS destroyed permanently imo.
I agree that everything is recycled but the original assemblies are gone forever. Recycled paper is not the original paper but's its constituents are based on it's 'ancestors,' just like humans. No natural intent or teleology required, just human intelligent design (at least in the case of recycled paper or genetically engineered/artificially selected life)
I would hate to be cursed with imposed immortality. I would pity an eternal immortal god. It suggests a wretched omni creature with no purpose to it's existence.
Science may eventually offer humans a longevity and robustness, which reduces death to a personal choice. Natural entropy can be resisted by human science. That's what science will eventually be able to offer life. Not the horror (no-choice) immortality of a posited omnigod, but control over the death of an individual identity. We can network with others, sure, but we will never have to experience such a pointless existence, as the posited Jehovah, Allah etc. An omni, immortal, for whom solipsism would be a hellish, eternally inescapable, fact.
Would you condemn a god to the 'no death option?'
I know this is an old criticism but it's still a valid one. Can something be omnipotent if it cannot permanently die. Did Jesus have no choice in it's resurrection?
An immortal cannot die a human death, so the trinity and the blood sacrifice is a con job.

There have been a good number of 'entropy' threads already on TPF. A quick TPF search might be a good move before you post your 'Does entropy exist?' thread. I will however gladly contribute to it, if you do.

Your above overview expresses much that I find agreeable and, moreover, it tracks closely (in my opinion) with my simulation_convergence thesis: human and its unruly gods are a case of: as it is below, so it is above. Just now, in our time, human is arguably adolescent vis-a-vis God. This is a time, therefore, when human goes away from God in search of independence and self-determination. Snarling denunciations of God's overbearingness are to be expected.

There have been a good number of 'entropy' threads already on TPF. A quick TPF search might be a good move before you post your 'Does entropy exist?' thread. — universeness

I confess. I'm not going to immediately act on this good advice, embarrassment be damned.

I'm of an age that has me watching the clock. Time hurtles forward and I'm letting fly with my new entropy OP.