Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

From: Evolution News & Views

From Discovering Intelligent Design: The First Cause

reply to post by eli9x

Would you like to explain why you posted that link? Do you believe that it is sufficient proof or refutation of anything discussed in this thread? Can you show us how it is?

reply to post by eli9x


Fantastic post. Just what I needed to talk to the guy about nothingness.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by eli9x

 

Would you like to explain why you posted that link? Do you believe that it is sufficient proof or refutation of anything discussed in this thread? Can you show us how it is?

Ahem.....it's in the thread title...

Originally posted by peashooter

Originally posted by squiz


"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

Max Planck - The Nature of Matter speech 1944

This quote sounds similar to what Einstein had said ( wikipedia as a source, I know, it's bad)
"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

Without delving into Spinoza's philosophy which is also a matter of interpretation, It is clear from Max Plancks own words a view that consciousness is fundamental to reality. A view that I share, which is not based at all on religion.

At the very foundation of matter exists only abstract concepts, potentiality waves not physicality. The further down we go in studying matter determinism and locality disapear and slip through our fingers. Logic demands that the first cause was not physical. I am reminded of Aquinas' first mover philosophy. Anything physical can not be the cause of itself.

Regardless of world view, we are of the universe, a reflection of it. To quote Max again.

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."

Originally posted by eli9x
From: Evolution News & Views

From Discovering Intelligent Design: The First Cause

An excellent simple summary of the absurdity of the materialist position.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by eli9x

 

Would you like to explain why you posted that link? Do you believe that it is sufficient proof or refutation of anything discussed in this thread? Can you show us how it is?

Can you show how it isn't relevant to the discussion?

reply to post by Itisnowagain

If I must. The linked article contains (1) the assertion that Stephen Hawking is wrong to state that the universe creates itself and (2) an unsubstantiated claim that the universe cannot have arisen by chance. It adds absolutely nothing to what has been discussed here.

Faith-heads love singing in chorus, I know, but this link adds nothing but a sour note.

reply to post by Astyanax


It says this is created from nothing.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Can you show how it isn't relevant to the discussion?

Nothing could be more relevant.

1. In order for something to create itself it must exist before it is created.
2. Likewise chance must have something to act upon. Chance is a description of events between things.

Both are illogical and yes, absurd.

Not too hard to understand.

Nothing is the first and the last.
It always has been and will never not be.
Nothing caused nothing because no thing is ever created - this is nothing appearing to happen.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Nothing is the first and the last.
It always has been and will never not be.
Nothing caused nothing because no thing is ever created - this is nothing appearing to happen.

edit on 27-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

I like the way you describe this. Did you get my PM?

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Nothing is the first and the last.
It always has been and will never not be.
Nothing caused nothing because no thing is ever created - this is nothing appearing to happen.

edit on 27-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

I like the way you describe this. Did you get my PM?

I hadn't but have now and I have replied.

Originally posted by Hendrick99

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Do you want some specific observable phenomena? I would tell you to take a look at literally anything in the universe, but I assume that that wouldn't be enough for you either.

Yes. Specific observable phenomena would be the very FIRST place to start. Let me look at the glass of whisky sitting next to me on my desk.

How does it's existence point to your Intelligent First Cause?

Why such an easy one, Maccy? Clearly the glass of whiskey exists solely for you to drown not only your sorrows but your painfully transparent feelings of inadequacy you have with yourself. Now, once upon a time you criticized someone for bringing no useful information to the table……please enlighten as us we have been waiting patiently for some time now through your smug and pitiful posts to provide some semblance of constructive information. Ah, as you'd say, "you got nothing". Back to bed, kiddo. Life will only continue to get more difficult for you.

I didn't ask -why- it existed, I asked to point out how its existence points to an Intelligent First Cause. I highly doubt that a God created the universe so that some time in the future a certain arrangement of molecules could gather forming the sun, earth, and moon, furthering the evolution of a species that could figure our how to work glass and distill alcohol only so that I could sit here at my computer and take a drink from that whiskey to drown feelings of inadequacy that the God in question would have been responsibly for in the first place. Seems highly ethnocentric of me to believe that would be the case.

I bring nothing useful to the discussion because there is nothing useful to bring to the discussion. It would be like going to a thesis defense on Water Desalinization and trying to explain how it worked by watching an episode of Dancing With The Stars. I could entertain the idea that Dancing With The Stars could somehow be useful in the desalinization of water, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to poke holes in the thesis instead of arguing that a Salsa would work better than a Mambo?

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

I didn't ask -why- it existed, I asked to point out how its existence points to an Intelligent First Cause. I highly doubt that a God created the universe so that some time in the future a certain arrangement of molecules could gather forming the sun, earth, and moon, furthering the evolution of a species that could figure our how to work glass and distill alcohol only so that I could sit here at my computer and take a drink from that whiskey to drown feelings of inadequacy that the God in question would have been responsibly for in the first place. Seems highly ethnocentric of me to believe that would be the case.

It is no ones responsibility but your own to fix your life. If your only reason in doubting a creator is his lack of intervention in your self-created hell, then I honestly believe you have no place in this thread.

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

I didn't ask -why- it existed, I asked to point out how its existence points to an Intelligent First Cause. I highly doubt that a God created the universe so that some time in the future a certain arrangement of molecules could gather forming the sun, earth, and moon, furthering the evolution of a species that could figure our how to work glass and distill alcohol only so that I could sit here at my computer and take a drink from that whiskey to drown feelings of inadequacy that the God in question would have been responsibly for in the first place. Seems highly ethnocentric of me to believe that would be the case.

It is no ones responsibility but your own to fix your life. If your only reason in doubting a creator is his lack of intervention in your self-created hell, then I honestly believe you have no place in this thread.

Your reading skills are on par with your cognitive abilities, it would seem. Instead of trying to be witty, perhaps you should stick to trying to evidence your claims with something more than superstition.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

I highly doubt that a God created the universe ... so that I could ... take a drink from that whiskey to drown feelings of inadequacy

Do what you want with your life.

reply to post by squiz

Who mentioned the universe creating itself, before that link was posted? I don't remember any of us – on the sceptical side, at least – volunteering to explain how the universe comes to exist. Then again, I haven't been paying much attention on this thread since the OP's proposal to explain the necessity of an intelligent first cause by logic went south.

In fact, there's not much to keep me here now – especially after the OP's disgraceful, self-discrediting outburst two posts above this one. Have a nice thread if you're planning to stick around. Don't forget to keep NorEaster entertained, or the consequences will be dreadful.

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

I highly doubt that a God created the universe ... so that I could ... take a drink from that whiskey to drown feelings of inadequacy

Do what you want with your life.

This is a perfect example that speaks to this larger thread and the idea that you simply see what you want to see and not what is actually there.

Notice you snipped out the bits of that quote that fit your world view, but left out the parts that you found to be useless. I would also like to point out that you didn't reference the post I was responding to, the post that initially suggested that I have feelings of inadequacy.

This is what you are doing with your view of creation in general. You misattribute things you don't understand to superstitious beliefs that bias your finding in favor of the outcome you want them to have.

If you have done it with something as simply as a quote progression in a thread on the internet, is it fair to ask if you might be doing the same thing with something as complex as the nature of the universe?

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Can you honestly say that you know what you're talking about? No more than I do mine. I am simply using logical thinking to point to the very obvious existence of transcendental intelligence. By completely disregarding that, you are showing that you, also, are only seeing what you want to see.