Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

page: 1
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+1 more 
posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   

(Taken from multiple posts I wrote in another thread)




~~~~~~~~




Assuming that the Big Bang theory is correct (as opposed to some other theory, such as the currently rejected Steady State theory which claimed that the universe did not have a beginning), you must acknowledge that the universe had a cause. Call this whatever you like; I will call it 'God'. Now, since time and space did not exist until after the Big Bang, God must be both beyond time and space. There could not have been a 'time before' God, because both the concepts of 'time' and 'before' did not exist. This means that it was causeless, that it always existed and always will.

It is quite obvious that, in order for the universe to exist as utterly complex as it does, there must be some, shall we say, 'Divine Intelligence' behind its complexity. This is made especially obvious when we look at the four Fundamental Forces of Nature, which are:

The Gravitational Force - This is the weakest of the four forces, but it is what allows matter to be attracted to, and eventually, conglomerate with, other matter. Without gravity, There would be no stars, no planets, and consequently, no life.

The Strong Force - This is what keeps subatomic particles 'attached' to atomic nuclei. Without this force, the universe would be a mess of unbound quarks, leptons and bosons. Life could absolutely not form in these conditions.

The Electromagnetic Force - This force is described by electromagnetic fields, which are determined by the negative or positive charge of subatomic particles. Without it's electromagnetic field, Earth would be under constant bombardment by solar radiation, rendering it totally lifeless.

The Weak Force - This force is one of the most complex of the four forces, but essentially, it determines whether or not a specific neutron in the nucleus of an atom will become a proton. Without this force, all atomic matter would be fundamentally identical, with no differentiation of elements. Obviously, life could not have formed in a universe like this.

It is no coincidence that these forces exist, and in exactly the right proportions for life to eventually form. It is also obvious that some unbound conscious intelligence is responsible.
But before the universe, what was there for God to be conscious of? Nothing. But God was obviously conscious.

I think the issue is that people believe that consciousness has to be conscious of something, or else it is not conscious. This is a misconception. Consciousness does not have to have a subject for it to exist.

It is now easy to understand that the term 'consciousness' is not an abstraction of some phenomena, but a term used to describe the infinite and unmanifest potential in which all phenomena can exist.

~~~~~~~~



I am sure everyone has heard of the theory of dark matter. Dark matter is like 'God' or intelligent first cause; It cannot be observed directly, however we assume that it exists because of the effect (or, in God's case, the cause) it has on the universe. Objectively, both theories are equally plausible, however many scientists have developed biased opinions on the matter and reject any idea of a creator all together (probably due in part to the stereotypical fanaticism of many theologists). In that, they have successfully deflected possibly the most important and fundamental question in science, which is, "what caused the universe".

~~~~~~~~



Here's a very interesting paper which talks about the potential for an infinite amount of phenomena, existing as consciousness. It was translated from Portuguese:

English translation

Original Portuguese version

Basically what it describes is that the math behind any phenomena that exists must have been predetermined. It makes it close to impossible to refute the existence of an intelligent creator.




posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Think you have posted the same thread twice by mistake.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomEntered
 


Yes, however I deleted the content of the first post and the thread hopefully will be deleted by an admin.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Argument from ignorance....Argument from complexity.... blah blah blah blah...

You should do a bit of research on why you shouldn't use such poor arguments. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I agree op. Conciousness is concious of nothing.

This MAN god is alot of nonsense as you pointed out that there are just FORCES in the universe and thats all we really need to understand. Or to look into with great research.
edit on 24-5-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Please do yourself a favor and start here.

en.wikipedia.org...

However, remember, Wikipedia should only be your first stop, not your destination.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Argument from ignorance....Argument from complexity.... blah blah blah blah...

You should do a bit of research on why you shouldn't use such poor arguments. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


There is nothing extraordinary about common logic. Also that does not take away an validity from my argument.
edit on 24-5-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Just stay on topic .People will come on here and try and change it but your theories are really interesting so tell us more!



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Please do yourself a favor and start here.

en.wikipedia.org...

However, remember, Wikipedia should only be your first stop, not your destination.


I am a bit familiar with superstring theory, however I have no desire to look too deeply into a thing that cannot truly be comprehended.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Just stay on topic .People will come on here and try and change it but your theories are really interesting so tell us more!


This is a broad topic and I plan on covering it from as many angles as I plausibly can. Thank you for the encouragement.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   
There was a gentleman (I assume he was male) that retorted, in a reply to the first section of the OP:



Not if this universe is one of the longer-lasting failures in an infinite series of failures. Something of an inconstant multiverse where every universe is randomly composed of a randomized assortment of principles and particles. All will likely be failures, some will last longer than others. This universe appears to have been a success because we have nothing to compare it to in our relative ignorance. Your theory requires that we possess a complete knowledge of everything that exists, has ever existed, and ever will exist. [...]


to which I said,




But there still has to be some form of intelligence in order for 'principles' and 'particles' to even hold any sort of existence. They have to be based on something. Your claim of an inconsistent multiverse does not conflict with my theory as much as you think it does. It simply states that 'God' or first cause is not as intelligent as I theorized. Even if we are just an 'apparent success' in an infinite line of failures, the fact that [said multiverse exists in a way that] such a success has even the tiniest probability of occurring shows that there must be some sort of intelligence. Not to mention the fact that the possibility of any universe, [be it] success or failure, has ground and cause to exist in the first place.

edit on 24-5-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Hi, interesting post. I'll need more time to think about all that you have written but a few things caught my attention reading through the first time:


Originally posted by HarryTZ
Assuming that the Big Bang theory is correct (as opposed to some other theory, such as the currently rejected Steady State theory which claimed that the universe did not have a beginning), you must acknowledge that the universe had a cause. Call this whatever you like; I will call it 'God'.


First off, I would like to clarify something. Are you stating that in this proposition, your definition of 'God' is the acknowledgment that the universe had a cause.

For example, taking the Big Bang theory as the correct 'cause of the universe', this definition of 'God' could be ascribed to it?


Originally posted by HarryTZ
It is quite obvious that, in order for the universe to exist as utterly complex as it does, there must be some, shall we say, 'Divine Intelligence' behind its complexity. This is made especially obvious when we look at the four Fundamental Forces of Nature


Forgive me if I'm being ignorant, but I don't see how the complexity of the universe instantly equates to a Divine Intelligence behind it. Certainly it is one of the possibilities from the observations, but by no means the sole one.


Originally posted by HarryTZ
It is no coincidence that these forces exist, and in exactly the right proportions for life to eventually form. It is also obvious that some unbound conscious intelligence is responsible.


Are you familiar with the theory(-ies) of Multiverses and the Anthropic Principal relating to such a theory? Basically put, with a myriad of observable 'universes' in existence, each with possibly different physical laws, it would fall to reason that at least some of them would have the intricate fine tuning of physical laws so as to make life possible. There could in fact be thousands upon thousands of lifeless 'universes' out there, not containing the right characteristics necessary for life to come into existence.

We just had the luck to pick the right one


As I said, interesting post, and apologies if my reply isn't quite up to standard, I need to read through again.

Edit: I see your post in which another poster has touched on multiverse theory. Do what you may with mine
edit on 24-5-2013 by ParaZep because: Edit
edit on 24-5-2013 by ParaZep because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Please do yourself a favor and start here.

en.wikipedia.org...

However, remember, Wikipedia should only be your first stop, not your destination.


I am a bit familiar with superstring theory, however I have no desire to look too deeply into a thing that cannot truly be comprehended.



LOL

Wow... and yet.. here you are.. posting in Metaphysics and Philosophy.

It's like you are TRYING to be as funny as possible.


+11 more 
posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
If the complexity of everything is beyond our comprehension, yet we willing then bring in god as the answer for it all, leaving it at that and enjoying our ability to ignore facts if it's too hard to bother, then it still falls over at a crucial point of the entire thing.

Who made god.

"Universe, big bang? Impossible, Too complex. God did it."
"Who made god? "
"Oh don't ask such silly questions, it's rude and god won't like it."

So we either have gods creating gods creating gods creating everything. Or we have that thing we cannot know.

It's funny that god has only existed as long as humans have. And even less so in the form that he is accepted generally now, by the major religions.

He must have been really bored for the billions of years after he flicked a switch and said "Let there be ignorance."



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I think this may help with the complexity argument. It's from the Craig-Curley debate on the existence of God.


God makes sense of the complex order in the universe. During the last 30 years, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a delicate and complex balance of initial conditions simply given in the Big Bang itself. We now know that life–prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than any life–permitting universe like ours. How much more probable?

12. Well, the answer is that the chances that the universe should be life–permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re–collapsed into a hot fireball.{5} P.C.W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least.{6} [He also] estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10 raised to the 100th power would have prevented a life–permitting universe.{7} There are around 50 such constants and quantities present in the Big Bang which must be fine–tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. And it's not just each quantity which must be finely tuned; their ratios to each other must also be exquisitely finely tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

13. There is no physical reason why these constants and quantities should posses the values they do. The one–time agnostic physicist P.C. W. Davies comments, "Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact."{8} Similarly, Fred Hoyle remarks, "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super–intellect has monkeyed with physics."{9} Robert Jastrow, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, calls this the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science.{10}


www.leaderu.com...

This seems to be overwhelmingly persuasive evidence. I have read that scientists consider impossibility to be reached when odds against reach 10 to the fiftieth power. The numbers used here indicate impossibility raised to impossible heights.

An intelligent designer seems the only reasonable solution suggested.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


It never had any to take away.

When you provide no evidence for what you claim. Its quite easy to dismiss.

www.youtube.com...

This linked video discusses the argument from complexity, namely irreducible complexity.
edit on 24-5-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by winofiend
If the complexity of everything is beyond our comprehension, yet we willing then bring in god as the answer for it all, leaving it at that and enjoying our ability to ignore facts if it's too hard to bother, then it still falls over at a crucial point of the entire thing.

Who made god.

"Universe, big bang? Impossible, Too complex. God did it."
"Who made god? "
"Oh don't ask such silly questions, it's rude and god won't like it."

So we either have gods creating gods creating gods creating everything. Or we have that thing we cannot know.

It's funny that god has only existed as long as humans have. And even less so in the form that he is accepted generally now, by the major religions.

He must have been really bored for the billions of years after he flicked a switch and said "Let there be ignorance."


It amuses me that you instantly assume I'm religious. I am not, not at all. I am simply pointing out an obvious flaw in most scientists' logic.

You are correct about god not having any existence until the existence of humans. That is because 'god' is a noun that is used to speak of the infinitely probably intelligent cause of the universe. Bias also did not exist until the existence of humanity, so you must be right about god 'flicking a switch' and saying "Let there be ignorance."



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Yes, this helps much.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ParaZep

First off, I would like to clarify something. Are you stating that in this proposition, your definition of 'God' is the acknowledgment that the universe had a cause.

For example, taking the Big Bang theory as the correct 'cause of the universe', this definition of 'God' could be ascribed to it?


Yes, I am using the word 'God' because it is short and fits my purposes.




Forgive me if I'm being ignorant, but I don't see how the complexity of the universe instantly equates to a Divine Intelligence behind it. Certainly it is one of the possibilities from the observations, but by no means the sole one.


You are not being ignorant, it is good to question. I recommend you read the paper I linked to in the last part of the OP.



Are you familiar with the theory(-ies) of Multiverses and the Anthropic Principal relating to such a theory? Basically put, with a myriad of observable 'universes' in existence, each with possibly different physical laws, it would fall to reason that at least some of them would have the intricate fine tuning of physical laws so as to make life possible. There could in fact be thousands upon thousands of lifeless 'universes' out there, not containing the right characteristics necessary for life to come into existence.


Again, read the paper linked in the OP.
edit on 24-5-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


The God of the gaps theory once again.

-We can't explain those white dots in the sky. They must be Gods.
-Oh, we know what those are now? Well, we can't explain how they got there, so they must have been put there by God.
-Oh, we know how they got there? Well, God must have initiated the explosion to put them there.

And if we discover evidence that invalidates this "theory", I'm sure people like you will be happy to find more gaps to fill in with god.

Your argument adds NOTHING to our understanding of life or the universe. The universe works just as well without the assumption that divine intelligence created it. It's not common logic. Please stop boring us with these silly, age-old arguments.





new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join