by Spatial Mind
Is lights fixed speed evidence for a conscious design. Good question.
If light never had a fixed speed, then it wouldn't provide our consciousness with a useful tool for measuring far off distances. At the very least, lights fixed speed might be taken for granted. In a universe where time violation exists, let's be grateful we can see the light 13 billion or so lightyears away from here. Then we can do our math.
I'll take that as a 'no'.
Don't you get my argument? You are making a subjective judgement based on your own humanly flawed perspective when you say that stacked rocks are the result of a consciousness. You know that through experience living on this planet and that is hardly enough data to make a claim of intelligent design on a universal scale. You'd need experience from a multitude of universes for that.
I know what your saying, and like before, if the rocks are to pile up or stack without the intervention of a conscious being, again, conditions would apply, not saying it's impossible, though it would not happen all that well if the rocks fell from a cliff. They would bounce and break or shatter, not enough to qualify for a stack though some debree may end up on another. Not like we would do it, unless we wanted to make it so.
The thing is, when we actually see stacked rocks, it was one who has consciousness that actually did it, when I google this, I can't help but to think every example I see was done by someone.
You can't refute my argument by telling me what you think of the world. You're human and don't have the necessary experience to do that, like I've said multiple times.
Might you be suggesting the Universe has a point of view that matters while it is unconscious ? Or say the universe has an opinion that matters ?
I'm saying that there exists no purpose outside of a conscious mind and that the universe exists outside of our consciousness, Q.E.D there exists no conscious design on a universal scale. Not while there are plenty of other more logical explanations for life, the universe and everything.
Secondly, I'm aware that I am somewhere along the line of complexity, however, an inamate object not being able to produce results is something I have learned. A rock won't get any smarter because the rock is bigger than I can measure, now don't be shocked, but I just know it, don't ask me how I know, I just do.
I've given examples of the inanimate creating things but you dismiss them because that isn't the kind of creation you have in mind. And if I were to point to the creation of crystals in snowflakes, for instance, you'd start preaching about the Golden ratio again and how that is a clear proof of conscious design in and of itself.
Of course it matters. Energy is timeless, eternal exists, the universe containing all this is not timeless, and it is thought to collapse. The prime creator, God, is said to be eternal, long before we measured the invincibility of energy. It has been said God is the creator of all things in the universe. Science knows, the energy of space in all of the universe is absolute zero. Before time there was nothing. But now, we have something.
Something does not come from nothing, it never has.
Timelessness does not prove anything. We're faced with two equally absurd scenarios and that is that energy is timeless or that energy has come from nothing. How you can squeeze God into this I don't get.
And by the way, stop taking quotes and post them out of context.