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.

 

Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

page: 36
18
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Non empirically, there is proof that the universe is full of life. Empirically hundreds of years ago the world was flat, and a star was the size as my pinky nail. Some times logic, reason, deduction, inference, probability, and statistics, can give one glimpses of truth.


Exactly, the big bang, dark matter, black holes, the entirety of cosmology, and the theory evolution are all inferences. A great deal of science is based on inference. They are all subject to the same principles of inductive and deductive reasoning. Science does not deal in proofs. The arguments against the inference to the only known cause as it relates to code apply equally to all of these. So it is some what hypocritical to use the arguments Barcs has been using. The simplistic theory of evolution is perhaps one of the "loosest" inferences as is cosmology IMO.




posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


You do realize most of cosmology is direct observation that's not inference that's called proof. No wonder intelligent design confuses you and you think its a science you don't know how science uses observation.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Was the big bang observed? Has inflation been observed? Has the expanding universe been observed? Is dark matter observed? Has dark energy been observed? Has a singularity been observed? Has an event horizon been observed? Has neutronium been observed? has strange matter been observed? and on and on and on...

Is the fact that the only known cause of code is intelligence not an observation? Which by your standards would constitute proof, if observations equal proof?
edit on 6-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Was the big bang observed? Has inflation been observed? Has the expanding universe been observed? Is dark matter observed? Has dark energy been observed? Has a singularity been observed? Has an event horizon been observed? Has neutronium been observed? has strange matter been observed? and on and on and on...

Is the fact that the only known cause of code is intelligence not an observation? Which by your standards would constitute proof, if observations equal proof?
edit on 6-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)


Ok science isn't your strong suit is it? Yes we have observed the big bang through background radiation.Yes we aoserved inflation otherwise we wouldn't know the universe is expanding. Yes we have observed the gravity effects of dark matter we know its there just not sure yet what it is hopefully cern can help on that. Cosmolgy mostly relies on direct observation odd you don't know that.

And as far as only intelligence creates code I all ready explained your beating a dead horse. As I said I think life created the first life. A genisis cell poped in to existance probably by time travel which was quite shocking for him I might add. Then he reproduced and the first cell was created odly enough his grandfater. After all as we know nothing else in the universe has created life other then life.

And as you keep pointing out it takes intellengence to create code well my genesis cell was I guess smart enough to reproduce. And scary part is my theory is better then your because I can even add another life has never been created without a parent unless you believe in adam and eve I guess.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
May I....



Was the big bang observed? Has inflation been observed? Has the expanding universe been observed? Is dark matter observed? Has dark energy been observed? Has a singularity been observed? Has an event horizon been observed? Has neutronium been observed? has strange matter been observed? and on and on and on...


I bet that sounded better in your head.
The conventional cosmological theories have been well substantiated by the evidence that has been collected in the near century since the Big Bang theory was proposed.
The Discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation gives observational evidence that the Big Bang happened, as well as... Olbers' paradox, the linear distance vs redshift law, homogeneity, isotropy and time dilation in supernova light curves.
Theories stand or fall based on how well they conform to reality, which is judged by whether predicted phenomena are observed.




Is the fact that the only known cause of code is intelligence not an observation? Which by your standards would constitute proof, if observations equal proof?


No...Intelligent code is a human construct.
Depending on this logic for a first cause and then imagining a first cause without a first cause, you've rendered the logic null.
You can't use logic to solve this puzzle, because anyway you go with it you run into a logical paradox. Logic is of no use because it fails at the infinite regress. If you believe that there must be a first cause and that is your god. Then you MUST answer who caused the god.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Ah... so you mean we infer the big bang via the cmb, we infer dark matter via gravitational effects.

Interesting. I guess that puts you in the perils of inductive and reductive reasoning then.

Precisely my point. My point was not if these things are true or not. Thanks guys.
You fell hook line and sinker for that one. Aparently science does not make inferences all the time, and deductive and inductive reasoning is not valid according to some.

The scientific methodology I am employing is the exact same. The observed phenomena is that intelligence creates codes and codes are not physics.

BTW. Intelligent code is not a human construct. DNA was doing it billions of years before us. And the biological world is full of intelligent codes for communication and infinite regress aplies equally to the physical, the big bang is an effect without a cause it would seem. Science does not work without logic and reason.

I just love scientismists. I guess logic is not your strong suit is it?

edit on 7-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Sorry to chime in, but could you clarify what your actual stance is? Mainly regarding the title of the thread, intelligence as first cause. Are you arguing that intelligence is the precursor to matter?



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   
My opinion is that consciousness is the fundamental essence of the universe. Mind is the matrix of all matter as Max Planck stated. As have other great minds. So I am in pretty good company.



As for the first cause of life on Earth, the intelligence could be extra terrestrial even. Detecting design does not include identifying the designer. But IMO consciousness creates life and not the other way around and biological evolution reflects the evolution of consciousness.
edit on 7-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Ok. My opinion is that while consciousness may exist in many places, it was not the first cause, as in, it did not create itself or create reality/experience/matter. I don't think consciousness in any medium can justify why anything exists at all, only accept the fact that it does exist. This I believe is what makes all consciousness equal, none above the other, only occupying different niches in space/time. Ergo, even the "intelligent designer" of the universe has the same philosophical problems that we have.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

For starters, those percentages to appear to be inaccurate, at least based on current estimates. He gives a % for "all material" then gives the same % for "other material". The "other material" should be part of "all material


If you read it again, you will see what he is getting at. The "other material" is part of the "all material", a very much smaller part (exponentially smaller). He is saying that out of the 0.00001% of the universe that contains matter (that is almost entirely found in stars, black holes etc.) only 0.00001% of it is found in planets etc. That's 0.00001 x 0.00001%. Though, in reality, the figures are thought to be far far smaller than he is suggesting.


Current estimates put the percentage of ordinary matter in the universe anywhere in the 3-10% range


I think the "critical density" type studies suggest that ordinary matter can now only account for 4-5% of the required mass of the universe (hence dark energy/matter). Not too long ago it was estimated that ordinary matter comprised 100% of the matter in the universe.This doesn't mean the universe was thought to be one big blob of solid matter.


4.6% Atoms. More than 95% of the energy density in the universe is in a form that has never been directly detected in the laboratory! The actual density of atoms is equivalent to roughly 1 proton per 4 cubic meters..


It doesn't make the statements you are referring to wrong. In fact, what he terms "lethal radiation filled vacuum" is now thought to somehow account for most of the mass in the universe, giving a hint to it's vastness. It doesn't weigh very much.


The estimated average density of the universe is 1 x 10-27 kg/m3. That is.............

a density of around 0.000000000000000000000000001 kg in every cubic meter of space. That's a lot of empty space over an entire universe, especially when you consider it isn't spaced evenly, but where it does occur is highly concentrated in clumps. That leaves a lot of room for his "lethal radiation filled vacuum", doesn't it?

A comparison of the best vacuum achievable in a laboratory gives 1 x 10-17 kg/m3. So the universe is emptier than the best vacuum we can achieve in a laboratory by quite a huge amount.

If he has erred it is because he hasn't extended his figure to enough decimal points.



everything else is comprised of dark matter, dark energy, which we can't even see or detect. So how can we make assumptions on what may or may not be hospitable amongst that huge portion of the universe?


His point is that the universe doesn't appear to be fined tuned for "us", as many creationist and religious people claim it is. So you are hopeful that we will find earth like biological life floating around in this "lethal radiation filled vacuum"? Good luck with that. It might be found on planets similar to ours, though how much do you think those figures would change? They wouldn't really change at all in any meaningful way.

www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...

map.gsfc.nasa.gov...


But please let me know if I'm incorrect on any of this.


Please let me know if I am (wrong). This author is quite controversial among creationists, I doubt they would let his statements go by if wrong.


edit on 7-6-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ

(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.
i will describe in laymans terms how the universe arose. The universe came into being by the collision of 2 particles. Before the collision obviousy there was nothing but earlier collisions. Our universes collision just happenend to be perfect resulting in our universe. Where did the particles come from? From a particle colider in a much bigger universe,a bit like cern but in a particle colider which is many times bigger than our universe. Im affraid its turtles all the way down. Yes theres intelligent design involved,someone has to build a colider,and thats about as much influence the intelligent designer has. All you need is particles coliding and a machine to colide them. All this will be proved in time with the observations of the cosmic background radiation and the results of particle coliders. It is important to remember that size is infinat



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Infinate. Our universe from far away would look like a point of light and being a trillion times smaller than a electron is all relative to an observer. Sorry i have not read all the thread but well done.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
The simplistic theory of evolution is perhaps one of the "loosest" inferences as is cosmology IMO.

Simplistic theory of evolution? What's that? With evolution, the probabilities of e.g. inferences of phylogenies, usually reach expect values in the order of 1e-1000. That is to say, the probability of them being wrong is something like:



I'd hardly call that loose. In statistics, p-values ≥ 0.05 are thought to be meaningful. When it comes to scientific theories, the mountain of evidence that stands behind evolution is unbeatable..
edit on 7-6-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


I have no problem with the concept of a common anscestor, so that is no problem for me.
It does not explain the mechanisms. It also ignores the abundance of orphan genes and singleton proteins.
It can be interpreted in different ways. We can have the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. They are not the same thing. You seem to think evolution is equal to the modern synthesis, which has crumbled beyond repair.

Also it is not as neat and tidy as you would like to believe.

These days, phylogeneticists -- experts who painstakingly map the complex branches of the tree of life -- suffer from an embarrassment of riches. The genomics revolution has given them mountains of DNA data that they can sift through to reconstruct the evolutionary history that connects all living beings. But the unprecedented quantity has also caused a serious problem: The trees produced by a number of well-supported studies have come to contradictory conclusions.


www.sciencedaily.com...
edit on 7-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
It does not explain the mechanisms.

Of what?



It also ignores the abundance of orphan genes and singleton proteins.

What exactly is the problem here?



It can be interpreted in different ways. We can have the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. They are not the same thing. You seem to think evolution is equal to the modern synthesis, which has crumbled beyond repair.

Empty words. More evidence stands behind modern synthesis than any other scientific theory. And against? Absolutely nothing but uneducated and often biased (due to religious upbringing) opinions. Crumbled beyond repair, lol.



Also it is not as neat and tidy as you would like to believe.

These days, phylogeneticists -- experts who painstakingly map the complex branches of the tree of life -- suffer from an embarrassment of riches. The genomics revolution has given them mountains of DNA data that they can sift through to reconstruct the evolutionary history that connects all living beings. But the unprecedented quantity has also caused a serious problem: The trees produced by a number of well-supported studies have come to contradictory conclusions.


Sure, you can have contradicting branching of e.g. some fungal genera, or even the placement of eukaryotes (within Archaea or sister lineage), but overall the major branches have been set in stone (i.e. no contradictions). Feel free to link to contradicting well-supported studies though. Overall, I would say that never studies = more reliable than older studies since nowadays, instead of building trees on single genes like SSU rRNA, the trees are based on concatenations of 10s or 100s of protein-coding genes.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
More evidence than any other theory? pffft... Talk about religious devotion. The theory of Quantum electro-dynamics is experimentally accurate to one in a billion. What a rediculous statement. Extrapolating the meager insignificant steps in the lab we see to the emergence of new organs and body plans is ludicrous beyond reason.


The 200th anniversary of Darwin and the 150th jubilee of the Origin of Species prompt a new look at evolutionary biology. The 1959 Origin centennial was marked by the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis. The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.

The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (Box 1). So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

We also have the Altenburg 16, who recognize the defficiencies of this simplitic view. Even Larry Moran signed the dissent from Darwinism document. So even the materialists recognize it's deficiencies.

Awesome lecture on the current state of affairs.



The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the "Modern Synthesis" which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that "Modernist" biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st Century.


www.biology-direct.com...


Sixty years on, the very definition of 'gene' is hotly debated. We do not know what most of our DNA does, nor how, or to what extent it governs traits. In other words, we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level.


www.scientificamerican.com...

None of the above are creationists or ID theorists. Where have you been for the last couple of decades?

What Darwin did not know.


You can cling to your just so stories, does not bother me.
edit on 7-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 

Nothing you posted contradicts the main parts of the theory. To refresh your memory..




posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 



Wow, none of that is a problem? Ok. You have got to be trolling. That is just a tiny sample. There is no way you could have read all those and watched the videos in the time it took you to post your denial and subsequent story. This looks like that, and a just so story for every occasion eh? This is not about evolution. Evolution is true. I am sure, the modern synthesis is a archaic relic, there is nothing modern about it. It is your religion, It would be like arguing with a religious fundamentalist, no different.
edit on 7-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by rhinoceros
 



Wow, none of that is a problem? Ok. You have got to be trolling. That is just a tiny sample. There is no way you could have read all those and watched the videos in the time it took you to post your denial and subsequent story. This looks like that, and a just so story for every occasion eh? This is not about evolution. Evolution is true. I am sure, the modern synthesis is a archaic relic, there is nothing modern about it. It is your religion, It would be like arguing with a religious fundamentalist, no different.
edit on 7-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Empty words. Post actual contradicting material, like, articles, not some random youtube videos. In each case, please summarize how exactly it's that they contradict modern synthesis..



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Empty words indeed.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join