Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by soyentist
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.


I feel I am scaring people away by the use of the word 'God'.




posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
The difference between me and the average scientist, is that I don't immediately reject a theory because it 'seems to mystical'.
The biased perspective that many scientists have is very limiting and ignorant. Objectively, a theory of 'God' or intelligent design is just as valid as any other theory. Open your minds and maybe we will finally get somewhere.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 

The question of "Who made God?' pops up often enough. I found a reasonable argument from David Anderson. Here's what he suggests:

Both science and the Bible agree that time began to exist when the universe began to exist (the Bible made this statement thousands of years ago, science just discovered this fact about a hundred years ago).

Since time began to exist when the universe began to exist, then whatever force caused the universe to exist, be it God or something else, is, by definition, a timeless force. That is, it's a force that is not bound by the constraints of time that matter within the physical universe is bound by.

Therefore, this force would not likely be a force that has a beginning or an end. A force that has no beginning or end would not have a creator. Therefore, if God created the universe, God would not have a creator.

kingdavid8.com...



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


A point I touched on at the beginning of the OP. It seems people are responding without actually reading through the entire post. It's ridiculous.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


It really doesn't matter what you call it. You're still trying to fill our gaps in knowledge with an unfalsifiable theory. Like I said, the universe works perfectly well without your theory.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


How is that reasonable? Its another example of religious woo woo passed as wisdom.

If god existed outside of the universe then there has to be something outside of the universe to exist in. God would be created in what exists outside of our universe.

And if god can exist without the need of a first cause... then so can the universe.

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



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by soyentist
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


It really doesn't matter what you call it. You're still trying to fill our gaps in knowledge with an unfalsifiable theory. Like I said, the universe works perfectly well without your theory.


The cause of the universe cannot be explained with anything else but an unfalsifiable theory.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


The cosmologically unique earth-moon-sun configuration proves it beyond any reasonable doubt, also.


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.

Research, in depth, the earth-moon-sun geometrical configuration, and there is your evidence. I don't have time to lay it all out right now, but the info is available and Google is your friend. It's the most astonishing thing you'll ever discover, but it does require an open and investigative mind to find it and come terms with it. Also, the "strong anthropic principal" does not render the data meaningless, that's the thing.

Best regards,

NAM

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



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by charles1952
 


How is that reasonable? Its another example of religious woo woo passed as wisdom.

If god existed outside of the universe then there has to be something outside of the universe to exist in. God would be created in what exists outside of our universe.

And if god can exist without the need of a first cause... then so can the universe.


'God' or first cause is timeless. The universe is not. You cannot claim that the universe does not need a first cause because we already know that it began, around 13.7 billion years ago. And existence cannot simply spring from non-existence.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


The cosmologically unique earth-moon-sun configuration proves it beyond any reasonable doubt, also.


Please expand on this. I am interested.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 

Dear HarryTZ,

A point I touched on at the beginning of the OP. It seems people are responding without actually reading through the entire post. It's ridiculous.
Sure, but it's common here, and in the world. People form patterns, habits, in their minds. Often that's a good thing. I don't spend much time deciding which shoelace to tie first, or which way to drive to work, or which brand of peanut butter to buy, it's automatic and saves time and effort.

When faced with the words, "God," "Intelligent design," 'Creator," many people have an habitual response, it saves time and let's them stay in familiar territory. I can't really blame them, but it doesn't lead to serious discussions, just a rehash of old positions thought of in the same old way.

In this situation you have scientists, physicists, and hard numbers, not indicating that science doesn't know the answer, but that what we know almost forces us to accept an intelligent designer. There can be serious arguments raised against that, I suppose, but they'll be tough to find here.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. Sorry, didn't mean to sound defeatist. I think my analogy of a few nuggets of gold hidden in a huge pile of compost may apply here. - C -



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by winofiend
 

The question of "Who made God?' pops up often enough. I found a reasonable argument from David Anderson. Here's what he suggests:

Both science and the Bible agree that time began to exist when the universe began to exist (the Bible made this statement thousands of years ago, science just discovered this fact about a hundred years ago).

Since time began to exist when the universe began to exist, then whatever force caused the universe to exist, be it God or something else, is, by definition, a timeless force. That is, it's a force that is not bound by the constraints of time that matter within the physical universe is bound by.

Therefore, this force would not likely be a force that has a beginning or an end. A force that has no beginning or end would not have a creator. Therefore, if God created the universe, God would not have a creator.

kingdavid8.com...


Well, I submit to you that forces didn't exist before the universe began, so the place that force existed was forceless, which means it could not exist. And since nothing didn't exist until something existed, then that force is also nothingless, which means it's something, but something didn't exist, so it's somethingless, which means it's nothing. Oops my logic has completely broken down because it is flawed to the very core.

And like the argument above, this adds no value to our understanding of the universe.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


The theory of the "great expansion" or "big bang" which brought our universe to its current form is supported by observable evidence.

Should new evidence present itself that can change.

Notice the flexibility of science which is based on observable evidence and religion, by comparison, is not.
edit on 24-5-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


That's fine, but that brand of reasoning has no place in the world of scientific thought. Science is the practice of experimentation, observation and categorization, not fabrication.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by soyentist
 

Dear soyentist,

May I offer a different wording then?

Time does not exist unless there is something which changes. Decay of a radioactive particle, strength of a field, position of an electron, whatever. Therefore, before the material Universe came into existence, time did not exist.

Something brought the Universe into existence, but it couldn't have been material or a natural force because whatever it was had to be existing before the start of the Universe, before time. It is, therefore, outside of time, not bound by time or the physics of the Universe which it brought into existence. It had existed even before time did.

Whatever the "it" was which created the Universe, nothing could have come before it. There wasn't any "before" in that period of timelessness.

I may not have expressed it as well, but perhaps seeing it from a slightly different angle makes it clearer.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 

You spoke in the OP of effects from initial causes, well this one is the big Cahoona in terms of the manifestation of the entire cosmological evolutionary process in time and cosmic history.

To gather in the data, you'll need to read the book "Who Built the Moon", which, although the author's final conclusion isn't imo, reasonable, nevertheless spells it all out very well.

Check this for starters.

Strange Moon Facts.

Take a look at this video



And also looks into how the geometrical relationship of the moon to the earth "squares the circle" and you'll find the true nature of the Great Pyramid too (Google it).


as flower of life vesica pisces



I've concluded that the accretion disk of the solar system and by extension the galaxy must have been "seeded" with strange objects, once of which became our moon which is actually the cornerstone of our entire solar system, like the "Rosetta Stone of the Solar System" (Robert Jastrow
First Chairman, NASA Lunar Exploration Committee).

If interested here's where I started laying out the idea in a thread contest for a truly original or unique philosophical idea, for which my idea took, yes, the top prize!

Moon-seed by Intelligent Design
 

The information is conveyed in that post and subsequent ones on that page and the next, from the thread Contest with prize by me..

Hope that helps get you, and others, started down this line of inquiry, which terminates in an absolutely astounding and astonishing discovery and realization.

Here's a link to the free download location for the book Who Built the Moon. Enjoy!

Regards,

NAM

edit on 24-5-2013 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Originally posted by HarryTZ
The difference between me and the average scientist, is that I don't immediately reject a theory because it 'seems to mystical'.
The biased perspective that many scientists have is very limiting and ignorant. Objectively, a theory of 'God' or intelligent design is just as valid as any other theory. Open your minds and maybe we will finally get somewhere.


The difference between you and the average scientist is that you are not a scientist and do not understand the utility of theories.
edit on 24-5-2013 by soyentist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by HarryTZ
 

Dear HarryTZ,

A point I touched on at the beginning of the OP. It seems people are responding without actually reading through the entire post. It's ridiculous.
Sure, but it's common here, and in the world. People form patterns, habits, in their minds. Often that's a good thing. I don't spend much time deciding which shoelace to tie first, or which way to drive to work, or which brand of peanut butter to buy, it's automatic and saves time and effort.

When faced with the words, "God," "Intelligent design," 'Creator," many people have an habitual response, it saves time and let's them stay in familiar territory. I can't really blame them, but it doesn't lead to serious discussions, just a rehash of old positions thought of in the same old way.

In this situation you have scientists, physicists, and hard numbers, not indicating that science doesn't know the answer, but that what we know almost forces us to accept an intelligent designer. There can be serious arguments raised against that, I suppose, but they'll be tough to find here.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. Sorry, didn't mean to sound defeatist. I think my analogy of a few nuggets of gold hidden in a huge pile of compost may apply here. - C -




You are right, which is very unfortunate, especially in our search for truth. It requires us to look at all possibilities, no matter how silly or mystical they may seem to our limited perspective.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ
The difference between me and the average scientist, is that I don't immediately reject a theory because it 'seems to mystical'.
The biased perspective that many scientists have is very limiting and ignorant. Objectively, a theory of 'God' or intelligent design is just as valid as any other theory. Open your minds and maybe we will finally get somewhere.


Except when you rejected string theory, right?

What a joke.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I think I understand what you're trying to say a little bit better. I guess my question is why is this important. It's an inference based on our current understanding of the nature of time and the universe.

I guess it is just for the sake of discussion. I tend to get overzealous when I see a misunderstanding of scientific thought. I would never say that a scientists rejects theories. I would say that they prefer theories that can be falsified and add value to our understanding of the way things work.





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join