Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

reply to post by ignorant_ape

The moon in ancient earth history used to be much closer to the earth, the powerful tidal forces of which would have helped to drive the process of evolution by causing salt water to pool far inland breaking up molecular recombinations, but it's only now, when there are self aware sentient observers that the apparent visible circumference of the moon is identical to that of the sun, where at full moon it is a perfect reflection, and also during total eclipse, both solar, with the circumference of the moon blotting out the sun and lunar, with the shadow of the earth circumferencing the moon. The moon is also responsible for dynamic equilibrium balancing of the earth's wobble and tilt responsible for the seasons and the cycle of life, including the process of human fertilization and gestation. In short the moon-earth-sun relationship is the cause of life on earth as we enjoy it today, including the presence of liquid water over 90% of the earth's surface.

The full moon also mimics the sun, by rising at night, and by chasing the sun on a monthly basis such that at opposite winter/summer solstices the full moon rises at a degree equidistant to due north of that of the rising sun, and yet the moon orbits the earth and the earth, the sun.

Such things are only significant however, to an earth-based, sentient observer. As you yourself said

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

eclipses just happen - they serve no actual emperical benefit to any terestrial organism

The only counter argument is fluke/coincidence, and yet any investigative study will show that the earth-moon-sun relationship is perfectly configured in favor of life.

There's a lot more data than this too some of which reveals that something very unusual took place during the formation of the earth whereby presently held theories of moon formation must be discarded ie: the double-whack theory by unknown rogue planetoid for example.

The main point of this little thesis, aside from the Jesus bit with his use of a lunar eclipse as some sort of spiritual-cosmic theodolite (lens), resides in our ability to look at effects from first causes and recognize intelligent design.

You can argue coincidence or random happenstance if you like, but it's a rather poor argument in the face of all the evidence and data to the contrary which points to a comic evolutionary process intentionally directed towards life, including life as we know it, and even human life. And if by design then it was by anticipation from the very beginning of time and space with the present outcome and effect enfolded in the originating cause, and that's not only intelligent, but what I call super-intelligent or infinitely intelligent.


But wait there's more..






In the diagram above, the big triangle is the same proportion and angle of the Great Pyramid, with its base angles at 51 degrees 51 minutes. If you bisect this triangle and assign a value of 1 to each base, then the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) equals phi (1.618..) and the perpendicular side equals the square root of phi. And that’s not all. A circle is drawn with it’s centre and diameter the same as the base of the large triangle. This represents the circumference of the earth. A square is then drawn to touch the outside of the earth circle. A second circle is then drawn around the first one, with its circumference equal to the perimeter of the square. (The squaring of the circle.)

This new circle will actually pass exactly through the apex of the pyramid. And now the “wow”: A circle drawn with its centre at the apex of the pyramid and its radius just long enough to touch the earth circle, will have the circumference of the moon! Neat, huh! And the small triangle formed by the moon and the earth square will be a perfect 345 triangle

Ref: geometry.wholesomebalance.com...
Ref 2: nexusilluminati.blogspot.ca...
Ref 3: Strange Moon Facts

Isaiah 28:16
So this is what the Sovereign Lord says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic.

Haggai 2:18
‘From this day on, from this twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, give careful thought to the day when the foundation of the Lord’s temple was laid. Give careful thought:

things that make ya go hmmmm....

Perhaps if the origin of the moon is some sort of astro-engineered object (which I've concluded that it is and must be), that even then God still gets the last laugh, and the final glory.

"It was the stone that was rejected by the builders that became the cornerstone."

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

if " harry " wants to demonstrate logic - " harry " should coherently explain the origin of his alledged god - i already asked - but you ignored it - so the floor is yours

*Sigh*... If you would actually read through the pages and pages and pages of discussion, you would find what you are looking for. I have already covered that topic AT LEAST three times (and it has been mentioned by others as well).

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

here is a question for you - are you prepared to admit that you could be wrong ?

Prepared? Yes. But is it actually going to come to that? No. You see, I am simply describing the most logical explanation of everything. You can try and theorize a million different idealistic 'alternatives' to IFC (intelligent first cause), but they would only be based on your inability to detect logic when it is there.

Decades of confounding experiments have physicists considering a startling possibility: The universe might not make sense.
...
However, in order for the Higgs boson to make sense with the mass (or equivalent energy) it was determined to have, the LHC needed to find a swarm of other particles, too. None turned up.
...
With the discovery of only one particle, the LHC experiments deepened a profound problem in physics that had been brewing for decades. Modern equations seem to capture reality with breathtaking accuracy, correctly predicting the values of many constants of nature and the existence of particles like the Higgs. Yet a few constants — including the mass of the Higgs boson — are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations.
...
The LHC will resume smashing protons in 2015 in a last-ditch search for answers. But in papers, talks and interviews, Arkani-Hamed and many other top physicists are already confronting the possibility that the universe might be unnatural.
...
Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam.
...
The energy built into the vacuum of space (known as vacuum energy, dark energy or the cosmological constant) is a baffling trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times smaller than what is calculated to be its natural, albeit self-destructive, value. No theory exists about what could naturally fix this gargantuan disparity. But it’s clear that the cosmological constant has to be enormously fine-tuned to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance.
...
Now, physicists say, the unnaturalness of the Higgs makes the unnaturalness of the cosmological constant more significant.

www.simonsfoundation.org...

Notice the escape clause to extend the probabilty argument?

"then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky?"

Why else indeed, never mind that big fat elephant in the room.

reply to post by squiz

Why would they not consider the possibility of design before concluding that there must be an infinite number of naturally messed up universes of which ours is the only one ordered in favor of life? Seems like a rather far flung appeal to uphold the strong anthropic principal and avoid the implication of a designer.. those scientists, so smart and yet so clueless even when the all the clues point in one direction.

Elephant in the room indeed.

Foundations of Carbon-Based Life Leave Little Room for Error
news.ncsu.edu...

The Hoyle state plays a crucial role in the helium burning of stars that have reached the red giant stage. The close proximity of this state to the triple-alpha threshold is needed for the production of carbon, oxygen, and other elements necessary for life. We investigate whether this life-essential condition is robust or delicately fine-tuned by measuring its dependence on the fundamental constants of nature, specifically the light quark mass and the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. We show that there exist strong correlations between the alpha particle binding energy and the various energies relevant to the triple-alpha process. We derive limits on the variation of these fundamental parameters from the requirement that sufficient amounts of carbon and oxygen be generated in stars.

In new lattice calculations done at the Juelich Supercomputer Centre [in Germany] the physicists found that just a slight variation in the light quark mass will change the energy of the Hoyle state, and this in turn would affect the production of carbon and oxygen in such a way that life as we know it wouldn't exist.

"The Hoyle state of carbon is key," Lee says. "If the Hoyle state energy was at 479 keV [479,000 electron volts] or more above the three alpha particles [helium-4 nuclei], then the amount of carbon produced would be too low for carbon-based life.

"The same holds true for oxygen," he adds. "If the Hoyle state energy were instead within 279 keV of the three alphas, then there would be plenty of carbon. But the stars would burn their helium into carbon much earlier in their life cycle. As a consequence, the stars would not be hot enough to produce sufficient oxygen for life. In our lattice simulations, we find that more than a 2 or 3 percent change in the light quark mass would lead to problems with the abundance of either carbon or oxygen in the universe."

Beyond such relatively small changes, the anthropic principle appears necessary at this time to explain the observed reaction rate of the triple-alpha process

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by squiz

 

Why would they not consider the possibility of design before concluding that there must be an infinite number of naturally messed up universes of which ours is the only one ordered in favor of life? Seems like a rather far flung appeal to uphold the strong anthropic principal and avoid the implication of a designer.. those scientists, so smart and yet so clueless even when the all the clues point in one direction.

Elephant in the room indeed.

edit on 28-5-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

Exactly, dare they mention the unmentionable.

reply to post by squiz


Of course, science, dogmatic as it currently is, will just continue to spew out less-than-logical theories to tiptoe around the holes in their discoveries. "No, the universe couldn't have had an intelligent designer... obviously there's a multiverse with a #ton of other random universes, and we just got lucky." And there are people here telling me that I'm being illogical.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by squiz

 

Of course, science, dogmatic as it currently is, will just continue to spew out less-than-logical theories to tiptoe around the holes in their discoveries. "No, the universe couldn't have had an intelligent designer... obviously there's a multiverse with a #ton of other random universes, and we just got lucky." And there are people here telling me that I'm being illogical.

Yes, you have been incredibly illogical in this thread, three ways in which I have pointed out to you, and you have merely deflected them.

If there is a multiverse, luck has nothing to do with our development. We are either in a universe that is capable of sustaining life, or we are not. Like the planets in our solar system. It is not lucky that we are on Earth, because Mars cannot sustain life as we need it to be sustained. We are on Earth because we are what the potential of Earth has fostered into creation.

reply to post by HarryTZ


sigh - i asked for a coherent explaination - not the special pleading you have trotted out

Originally posted by squiz

Beyond such relatively small changes, the anthropic principle appears necessary at this time to explain the observed reaction rate of the triple-alpha process

The anthropic principal explains nothing, except to say that if it wasn't fine tuned to the degree that it is, we wouldn't be here, and that's not a scientific explanation for the data, which is rendered meaningless by the anthropic principal, but meaningful when intelligent design is considered.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Yes, you have been incredibly illogical in this thread, three ways in which I have pointed out to you, and you have merely deflected them.

Okay.

If there is a multiverse, luck has nothing to do with our development. We are either in a universe that is capable of sustaining life, or we are not. Like the planets in our solar system. It is not lucky that we are on Earth, because Mars cannot sustain life as we need it to be sustained. We are on Earth because we are what the potential of Earth has fostered into creation.

Which still doesn't explain where said multiverse arose from and how universes even have the ability to just form for no reason with extremely precise physical laws -- be them life-supporting or not.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by squiz

 

Of course, science, dogmatic as it currently is, will just continue to spew out less-than-logical theories to tiptoe around the holes in their discoveries. "No, the universe couldn't have had an intelligent designer... obviously there's a multiverse with a #ton of other random universes, and we just got lucky." And there are people here telling me that I'm being illogical.

Yes it is more about explaining away when confronted with uncomfortable conclusions.
Some might call the multiverse hypothesis a "gaps fallacy".
Or perhaps we could send these physicists a list of logical fallacies to show how wrong they all are.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

sigh - i asked for a coherent explaination - not the special pleading you have trotted out

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally posted by squiz
Some might call the multiverse hypothesis a "gaps fallacy".

Exactly. Except the multiverse 'theory' still wouldn't really explain anything.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
Which still doesn't explain where said multiverse arose from and how universes even have the ability to just form for no reason with extremely precise physical laws -- be them life-supporting or not.

You are the one claiming to have the explanation, Harry. Your claim is that it is an Intelligent Creator. I am perfectly comfortable saying that I don't know, but if you are going to tell me what the truth of it is, you better be able to back it up.

You haven't.

reply to post by squiz

I am perplexed why they never examine the extraordinarily fine-turned earth-moon-sun relationship. For some reason it's just taken for granted, as if it's a purely natural formation.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

I have on his behalf. Check the info, and then check it again.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by HarryTZ
Which still doesn't explain where said multiverse arose from and how universes even have the ability to just form for no reason with extremely precise physical laws -- be them life-supporting or not.

You are the one claiming to have the explanation, Harry. Your claim is that it is an Intelligent Creator. I am perfectly comfortable saying that I don't know, but if you are going to tell me what the truth of it is, you better be able to back it up.

You haven't.

I'm deducing logically that an Intelligence is most likely the cause of the universe.

The proof is all around you. See it in everything, Michael.