It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Case for an Intelligent Designed Universe

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You said:


I tend to agree with Dr Hawking. I'm serious about that.


Well, if you agree with Hawking, you need to be up to date with what he's saying.
Thanks for providing the source!

This will teach me to do a better job of keeping up with what people are saying as you suggest, thanks.


Originally posted by Confusion42
And Arbitrageurl get's owned.Good job
I concede that when someone changes their mind, and I'm not up to date on that, I should have been better informed.

Regarding being owned, I'm not sure I'd go quite that far. Even after Hawking's change of mind, it is STILL listed as an unsolved problem in physics, and even Penrose, who was part of the bet on the same side as Hawking, is unconvinced by Hawking's argument:

Black hole information paradox

When announcing his result, Hawking also conceded the 1997 bet, paying Preskill with a baseball encyclopedia "from which information can be retrieved at will." However, Thorne remains unconvinced of Hawking's proof and declined to contribute to the award.
I'll have to read his paper, but according to other sources I just read, Hawking changing his mind apparently didn't solve the unsolved problem in physics, so I think it's still unsolved.




posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I am going to go ahead and give the answer no one wants to here. We do not know how the universe was created and will likely never know for certain; Period. So no matter what religious belief or scientific law we can only assume. This is in response to the assumptions in this thread, us humans do not understand 2% of the universe and for all we know most of the 2% is just an illusion.

We are not even a needle in a haystack, we are a piece of dust on the needle in the haystack
. We can pretend we understand but we will never know what really goes on out there and how it affects us.

edit on 21-1-2012 by OwenGP185 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Here's a good lecture by Leonard Susskind. He talks about things like entropy, information and black holes. He also talks about Hawking and the bet.



At the end of the day, an INTELLIGENT MIND is a necessity.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Im sorry but I don't see how anyone can make the statement that it is a necessity to have an intelligent mind create the universe. Why can't order, purpose, and complexity arise without somebody or something setting it up. And then it begs the question, if these things can't arise without an intelligent mind, how does this intelligent mind get there???? Oh and don't give me the BS answer, "he's always been there, and will always be" because thats just not an answer, and certainly not evidence that the universe was created.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


Information can't go from a high state of entropy to a low state of entropy to convey message and meaning without a mind. That's like saying an airplane just formed without a designer. We know the universe is no different. Information can't be created nor destroyed it just goes from a high state of entropy to a low state of entropy.

You also say this Intelligent Mind needs to be created and this is nonsense. In one breathe you don't accept the intelligent mind and then in the next breathe you say it had to be created. Why should you set the parameters on the intelligent mind you don't accept? If you can't understand that things just exist like energy and information then that's a problem of comprehension.

This goes to the silly who created god question. It's silly because the atheist that doesn't accept God is trying to define god as created. If you can't debate against God whose Eternal then maybe you need to get a new argument. Why should anyone who accepts or believes these things debate them based on the interpretation of a non believer? Why should I debate a created god when I don't believe or accept a created god? We would be debated some straw god that you made up because you can't debate an eternal God.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by andersensrm
 


Information can't go from a high state of entropy to a low state of entropy to convey message and meaning without a mind. That's like saying an airplane just formed without a designer. We know the universe is no different. Information can't be created nor destroyed it just goes from a high state of entropy to a low state of entropy.

You also say this Intelligent Mind needs to be created and this is nonsense. In one breathe you don't accept the intelligent mind and then in the next breathe you say it had to be created. Why should you set the parameters on the intelligent mind you don't accept? If you can't understand that things just exist like energy and information then that's a problem of comprehension.

This goes to the silly who created god question. It's silly because the atheist that doesn't accept God is trying to define god as created. If you can't debate against God whose Eternal then maybe you need to get a new argument. Why should anyone who accepts or believes these things debate them based on the interpretation of a non believer? Why should I debate a created god when I don't believe or accept a created god? We would be debated some straw god that you made up because you can't debate an eternal God.


I don't set parameters on a mind I don't accept, I don't accept the mind because of the parameters I've placed on it. For me, I don't think anything can be eternal. Not energy, not time, not anything. This is why I can't accept the fact that there is an intelligent mind. As far as debating it, I debate it to open my view to as many perspectives as I can, as well as test my own theories. But by going on this forum, I don't actually expect to find out all the answers of our universe, or explain them to people, because I just don't know. But I do appreciate what you have to say, because it provides me with a view I wouldn't have thought of. I don't just participate in things that I am pre-disposed into believing, I like to get it all, and then constantly rethink about it.

Now everything we can experiment, and do, will tell us that your right, that things with meaning and purpose cant be created without some kind of outside intelligent interaction. But we don't REALLY know this. And if you don't mind me asking what is this message and meaning that is being conveyed to us by this mind?? Because if theres no message and meaning, this would disprove the fact that there had to be an intelligent mind, right?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


You said:


For me, I don't think anything can be eternal.


This says it all. When you say "anything" this screams materialism. What is anything when everything is the same thing? We know this through things like entanglement and non locality. Let's go even deeper. What is energy? Is there any evidence that energy dies? The answer is no. Energy can't be created nor destroyed it just changes form. Have you ever heard of zero point energy? How was this energy created if it's not eternal? How was information created if it's not eternal?

Also, what "thing" is God? You said I don't think any-thing can be eternal. So what "thing" is God? What "thing" is the Intelligent Mind?

Everything conveys a message and meaning because everything is governed by information. When a man jumps off a tall building, it has meaning because information tells us why the man falls to the ground. A star that shines has meaning because information tells us how that star is produced and why that star shines. Nothing occurs naturally. Everything is governed by information. A plant growing out of the ground is governed by information as well as a car leaving a factory assembly line. This information needs a mind to go from a high entropy state to a low entropy state.

So saying if two rocks are in my driveway meet me at 1st street cafe and if three rocks are in my driveway meet me at 4th street cafe is no different than saying four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second-rank tensor equals zero. There both information that conveys message and meaning and for that you need an INTELLIGENT MIND.


edit on 25-1-2012 by Matrix Rising because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by boot2theface
reply to post by andersensrm
 


God could not have been created. God is all. Pure and indescribable.


So who created god? Something must have....



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I can't answer the question why they were created, or how, but I believe that energy and information are not eternal, but this is in a different sense of time. See I think your confusing what I mean by eternal, because in the time that we perceive it would be endless, thus being infinite, or eternal, but outside of time, nothing is eternal. This makes it incredibly hard to prove or deny because it lies outside of our plane of existence. The time we perceive is just an illusion. This intelligent mind, that we are speaking of, could be the collective conscious of all living things in the universe. That is not some separate entity, but a combination of many, or one that has broken down into many. But past this mind, we can't really conceive what lies past, which is why many are led to the conclusion that this mind, like energy, is eternal. But how can it be, if it existed before time, it had to create time along with space, and energy, therefore it is not bound to it, like all other "physical" things.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
When the word "God" is mentioned, this sparks many different perceptions of the nature of what that word really means. This is literally a confused world when looking at us as a whole. We can't agree on anything, even the simple nature of the place we live on. When we stop using the word "God" and start knowing the true meaning behind the word "God", we won't be confused anymore.

Because for a long time now, there are many Gods, and time has distorted their meanings in conjunction with dogma, culture, politics, and social infrastructure. Mankind in essence has transformed what that word really means into what it means to them and how it can serve them.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   
I am an agnostic, maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Don't you realize that philosophizing with words cannot resolve the question whether the universe has been designed by an intelligence creator? From a scientific perspective, it can be settled only by hard facts whose existence can have no other more plausible explanation. The question then is: do such facts exist in sufficient numbers and of such a character to exclude conventional interpretation?

If you want to see irrefutable, mathematical facts proving beyond doubt that a transcendental designing Intelligence is at work, study the research at:
smphillips.8m.com...
This work reveals for the first time the interface between religion and hard science. It is of a mathematical nature and has been embodied in certain sacred geometries, the preternatural nature of which is demonstrated in all its wondrous beauty in the research articles at this website. You will discover - if you study the research diligently enough - the existence of a universal, mathematical pattern that has appeared in superstring theory. You will encounter a gnosis that transcends science/culture/belief/opinion because the Mind of God has now been unveiled - not as some nebulous speculation or unprovable claim but as a reality that can be demonstrated with the same rigour as any axiom of Euclidean geometry.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Very good post.

I agree with most of what you said. An intelligent mind must exist outside of space-time.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join