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: 43
18
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Maybe this will help it at least shows were getting closer to some answers but alas there will all ways be more questions.Im really intreagued by what will learn from plank satellite.




Is our universe merely one of billions? Evidence of the existence of 'multiverse' revealed for the first time by cosmic map Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... gfigEW Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook




posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Maybe this will help it at least shows were getting closer to some answers but alas there will all ways be more questions.Im really intreagued by what will learn from planck satellite. Just think if we prove the multiverse is real anything becomes possible!




Is our universe merely one of billions? Evidence of the existence of 'multiverse' revealed for the first time by cosmic map Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... gfigEW Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



edit on 6/14/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
This could mean.....self replicating universes.....each one perhaps a little different to the one that gave rise to it.....evolving in the multiverse through a type of natural selection.....which would mean.....eh gads!!!

If science fails to explain the semioticismoticagopic itsthefluxcapacitormarty creationistflapdoodlewoo howthestuffistransferred relationship here that can only be accounted for by intelligence, we would have no choice but to revert back to the default position.....god, surely?

Then if we replace the principle of parsimony with the more scientic ones like applyanyconceptifithelpsyourbelief and lotsofbigwordsthatsoundgreat, it also seems to say that nothing other than god could create this.....intelligently designed multiverse(s), god all the way?



edit on 14-6-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


Have another beer



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by WASTYT
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


Have another beer





posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
This could mean.....self replicating universes.....each one perhaps a little different to the one that gave rise to it.....evolving in the multiverse through a type of natural selection.....which would mean.....eh gads!!!

If science fails to explain the semioticismoticagopic itsthefluxcapacitormarty creationistflapdoodlewoo howthestuffistransferred relationship here that can only be accounted for by intelligence, we would have no choice but to revert back to the default position.....god, surely?

Then if we replace the principle of parsimony with the more scientic ones like applyanyconceptifithelpsyourbelief and lotsofbigwordsthatsoundgreat, it also seems to say that nothing other than god could create this.....intelligently designed multiverse(s), god all the way?



edit on 14-6-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.




All this semi-ID-iotic argument is just "new information" logic dressed up in sophistic language with excessive, ill-defined verbiage. This unnecessarily complex writing brain f#cks the intended meaning. it’s hard to understand so it must be meaningful.


Physical processes relating the codon to the amino acid are well understood. I think someone needs to look up concepts such as ribosomes, tRNA, and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase. But why bother? knowing stuff about biology doesn't help one to be a creationist.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Maybe some of you will take pleasure in reading this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not entirely sure how relevant it is at this point, though.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
This could mean.....self replicating universes.....each one perhaps a little different to the one that gave rise to it.....evolving in the multiverse through a type of natural selection.....which would mean.....eh gads!!!

If science fails to explain the semioticismoticagopic itsthefluxcapacitormarty creationistflapdoodlewoo howthestuffistransferred relationship here that can only be accounted for by intelligence, we would have no choice but to revert back to the default position.....god, surely?

Then if we replace the principle of parsimony with the more scientic ones like applyanyconceptifithelpsyourbelief and lotsofbigwordsthatsoundgreat, it also seems to say that nothing other than god could create this.....intelligently designed multiverse(s), god all the way?



edit on 14-6-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.


...Excuse me.
*steps out of room*
*LOLOLOLOLOLOL*
*steps back in*
Sorry about that. *casual stretch* Lost my cool for a sec there.

But anyway, I understand your point. We tend to over-complicate things as a substitute for actual meaning. But there is a point to all of this existential mumbo-jumbo. We are simply attempting to take an objective look at the universe, and what we saw was beyond any so-called 'natural' description.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

I think someone needs to look up concepts such as ribosomes, tRNA, and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase.


Ok I just looked those up a bit, but can you help me with how their existence falsifies the potential that an intelligence created the universe?

Also how was the first examples of RNA formed, and what material utilized their form and function?



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by flyingfish

I think someone needs to look up concepts such as ribosomes, tRNA, and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase.


Ok I just looked those up a bit, but can you help me with how their existence falsifies the potential that an intelligence created the universe?

Also how was the first examples of RNA formed, and what material utilized their form and function?


Simply...there is no proof intelligence created the universe, just like there is no proof of purple unicorns that sh#t glitter.
But there is proof that chemicals-ie RNA- have physical properties and real spontaneous chemical reaction that happens all by itself no matter what. The fact that we can represent those reactions with letters does not create a coding systems that needs a coder to explain.
A living organism is essentially just an enormous molecule with the sum total properties of its constituents.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by flyingfish

I think someone needs to look up concepts such as ribosomes, tRNA, and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase.


Ok I just looked those up a bit, but can you help me with how their existence falsifies the potential that an intelligence created the universe?

Also how was the first examples of RNA formed, and what material utilized their form and function?


Simply...there is no proof intelligence created the universe, just like there is no proof of purple unicorns that sh#t glitter.
But there is proof that chemicals-ie RNA- have physical properties and real spontaneous chemical reaction that happens all by itself no matter what. The fact that we can represent those reactions with letters does not create a coding systems that needs a coder to explain.
A living organism is essentially just an enormous molecule with the sum total properties of its constituents.


If an intelligence did create a universe, and you existed in it, what would be the proof that an intelligence created that universe? Is it possible for an intelligence to create a universe?

So intelligence is just a natural chemical reaction caused to exist by the laws of physics.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by flyingfish

I think someone needs to look up concepts such as ribosomes, tRNA, and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase.


Ok I just looked those up a bit, but can you help me with how their existence falsifies the potential that an intelligence created the universe?

Also how was the first examples of RNA formed, and what material utilized their form and function?


Simply...there is no proof intelligence created the universe, just like there is no proof of purple unicorns that sh#t glitter.
But there is proof that chemicals-ie RNA- have physical properties and real spontaneous chemical reaction that happens all by itself no matter what. The fact that we can represent those reactions with letters does not create a coding systems that needs a coder to explain.
A living organism is essentially just an enormous molecule with the sum total properties of its constituents.


If an intelligence did create a universe, and you existed in it, what would be the proof that an intelligence created that universe? Is it possible for an intelligence to create a universe?

So intelligence is just a natural chemical reaction caused to exist by the laws of physics.


The physical laws of the universe/physics, created chemical reactions, that in turn brought about the emergence of intelligence.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by flyingfish

I think someone needs to look up concepts such as ribosomes, tRNA, and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase.


Ok I just looked those up a bit, but can you help me with how their existence falsifies the potential that an intelligence created the universe?

Also how was the first examples of RNA formed, and what material utilized their form and function?


Simply...there is no proof intelligence created the universe, just like there is no proof of purple unicorns that sh#t glitter.
But there is proof that chemicals-ie RNA- have physical properties and real spontaneous chemical reaction that happens all by itself no matter what. The fact that we can represent those reactions with letters does not create a coding systems that needs a coder to explain.
A living organism is essentially just an enormous molecule with the sum total properties of its constituents.


If an intelligence did create a universe, and you existed in it, what would be the proof that an intelligence created that universe? Is it possible for an intelligence to create a universe?

So intelligence is just a natural chemical reaction caused to exist by the laws of physics.


The physical laws of the universe/physics, created chemical reactions, that in turn brought about the emergence of intelligence.


Can you please answer my question; Is it possible for an intelligence to create a universe? My other question was; If an intelligence created a universe you existed in (because you said you cant prove an intelligence created this universe) hypothetically how could it be proven? (So pretty much there are truths the scientific method cant prove, but that doesnt mean those truths do not exist...Also you have no logical argument as to why this universe would not be created by an intelligent entity, you can only say; because we found out how to interpret some of the rules that run this system and it doesnt seem like there is a God making the rules happen all the time(we can explain nature without god) This argument is like existing in a computer simulation, and then learning the regularities of the programs and saying an intelligence did not design the computer or the programs because you know the rules of the programs and youve never seen an intelligence design them )

Also are you assuming this is the first time a universe has come into existence? also assuming this is the first time intelligence has emerged?

Is there no philosophical/scientific mystery on how inanimate, unintelligent, unaware, unconscious material 'morphed' into animate, intelligent,aware and conscious material? Is this not suspicious that this is possible? Must there be some relationship between what the universe is/what caused it, and the potential for it to become alive, conscious, and intelligent? That its parts can build intricate and powerful machines, invent consciousness.

Where is the line drawn between non life and life, non intelligence and intelligence, and how did nature cross that line?

Am I wrong for looking at it as a matter of control? We know human intelligence is the ability to have control, to intend for an outcome etc. So how was the point caused that the material of the universe that was being controlled by the laws of physics and chemistry began to possess its own control?
edit on 16-6-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 



Originally posted by flyingfish

The physical laws of the universe/physics, created chemical reactions, that in turn brought about the emergence of intelligence.


Wow, who would've thought that such an elusive answer to one of life's most complex and puzzling questions was that simple.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


It's very simple.

Either he (or she) can't answer your questions; or is scared by the implications of your questions to even bother. Which means they will continue to hide inside the bunker that current science has constructed and toss their stones from there.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





Can you please answer my question;


No need to beg.




Is it possible for an intelligence to create a universe?


No. If intelligence requires a designer then who designed the designer? an endless cycle of designers is needed.




If an intelligence created a universe you existed in (because you said you cant prove an intelligence created this universe) hypothetically how could it be proven? (So pretty much there are truths the scientific method cant prove, but that doesnt mean those truths do not exist.


Science can rule out that intelligence created the universe by simple observation. It tells us that if there was a creator, he used methods that are indistinguishable from natural processes and left no evidence whatsoever that intelligence had anything at all to do with it.





Also you have no logical argument as to why this universe would not be created by an intelligent entity, you can only say; because we found out how to interpret some of the rules that run this system and it doesnt seem like there is a God making the rules happen all the time(we can explain nature without god) This argument is like existing in a computer simulation, and then learning the regularities of the programs and saying an intelligence did not design the computer or the programs because you know the rules of the programs and youve never seen an intelligence design them )


You can't make a logical argument out of semantic waffle, I think such a concept is an oxymoron. Non-physical beings with a physical impact sounds magic to me.
If you are in a factory watching humans manufacture supercomputers, then you would know that supercomputers had an intelligent cause.
In fact, it would require a very poor grasp of reality to think otherwise.
When we look at the universe we see a natural cause.




Also are you assuming this is the first time a universe has come into existence? also assuming this is the first time intelligence has emerged?


Your assuming otherwise... more semantics?




Is there no philosophical/scientific mystery on how inanimate, unintelligent, unaware, unconscious material 'morphed' into animate, intelligent,aware and conscious material? Is this not suspicious that this is possible? Must there be some relationship between what the universe is/what caused it, and the potential for it to become alive, conscious, and intelligent? That its parts can build intricate and powerful machines, invent consciousness.


There is plenty of mystery about the universe and it's easy to say "anything is possible," but invoking a creator only deepens the mystery of who created the creator and on and on and on..... We can hypothesis a creator for ever, until it reveals it self.
This has not happened.




Where is the line drawn between non life and life, non intelligence and intelligence, and how did nature cross that line?


There is still much debate on what constitutes being alive, as well as intelligence. The line must be defined before crossing it.




Am I wrong for looking at it as a matter of control? We know human intelligence is the ability to have control, to intend for an outcome etc. So how was the point caused that the material of the universe that was being controlled by the laws of physics and chemistry began to possess its own control?



Yes..Control is a illusion. Your postulating an alternate reality that is undetectable, there is nothing to indicate physics and chemistry are under any control other than known natural processes.
edit on 16-6-2013 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by flyingfish

I think someone needs to look up concepts such as ribosomes, tRNA, and aminoacyl tRNA synthetase.


Ok I just looked those up a bit, but can you help me with how their existence falsifies the potential that an intelligence created the universe?

Also how was the first examples of RNA formed, and what material utilized their form and function?


Simply...there is no proof intelligence created the universe, just like there is no proof of purple unicorns that sh#t glitter.
But there is proof that chemicals-ie RNA- have physical properties and real spontaneous chemical reaction that happens all by itself no matter what. The fact that we can represent those reactions with letters does not create a coding systems that needs a coder to explain.
A living organism is essentially just an enormous molecule with the sum total properties of its constituents.


If an intelligence did create a universe, and you existed in it, what would be the proof that an intelligence created that universe? Is it possible for an intelligence to create a universe?

So intelligence is just a natural chemical reaction caused to exist by the laws of physics.


The physical laws of the universe/physics, created chemical reactions, that in turn brought about the emergence of intelligence.


Can you please answer my question; Is it possible for an intelligence to create a universe? My other question was; If an intelligence created a universe you existed in (because you said you cant prove an intelligence created this universe) hypothetically how could it be proven? (So pretty much there are truths the scientific method cant prove, but that doesnt mean those truths do not exist...Also you have no logical argument as to why this universe would not be created by an intelligent entity, you can only say; because we found out how to interpret some of the rules that run this system and it doesnt seem like there is a God making the rules happen all the time(we can explain nature without god) This argument is like existing in a computer simulation, and then learning the regularities of the programs and saying an intelligence did not design the computer or the programs because you know the rules of the programs and youve never seen an intelligence design them )

Also are you assuming this is the first time a universe has come into existence? also assuming this is the first time intelligence has emerged?

Is there no philosophical/scientific mystery on how inanimate, unintelligent, unaware, unconscious material 'morphed' into animate, intelligent,aware and conscious material? Is this not suspicious that this is possible? Must there be some relationship between what the universe is/what caused it, and the potential for it to become alive, conscious, and intelligent? That its parts can build intricate and powerful machines, invent consciousness.

Where is the line drawn between non life and life, non intelligence and intelligence, and how did nature cross that line?

Am I wrong for looking at it as a matter of control? We know human intelligence is the ability to have control, to intend for an outcome etc. So how was the point caused that the material of the universe that was being controlled by the laws of physics and chemistry began to possess its own control?
edit on 16-6-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Is it possible intelligent life created the universe well fairly easy the answer is no. Intelligence cant exist without the universe so that obviously has to come first somewhere. Now the second part can intelligent life create life sure we can so i dont think its that hard. Now is this the way it happened well if it is i don't think you can prove it probably never will. was there a planet that took 8 billion years for life to develop and they spread out into the galaxy its possible. Were new comers to the galaxy so who knows but science isn't philosophy and the two shouldn't be confused.

If you believe intelligence created life great if you believe life created itself great both ideas are equally valid. The only one that can be proved if true is intelligent life sprang up naturally though chemical processes. Either will figure it out or we wont but there is no way to prove intelligence created life on earth and will all ways be a matter of faith. My only problem is when people try to prove there faith through pseudo science, great thing about beliefs you dont need to prove them you believe this to be the answer it is your truth. Everyone has beliefs its human nature and i wouldn't have it any other way.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Of course it's possible that some form of intelligence designed us and the universe. Though at this stage that discussion is not so much a scientific, as a philosophical one (which doesn't make it true or otherwise). I think that's the objection, that people are claiming it as science. The genuine scientific reasons for considering that it actually did, amounts to the following.....

www.youtube.com...

Though the question of consciousness is a fascinating one with possibilities IMO. A shame new age/creationists turn to genuine psuedo science and woo to explain these things. All through history it seems, otherwise brilliant people have been assigning god as an explanation, when the limits of knowledge were reached. Yet when it was understood, so far, god wasn't there. All scientific claims for god seem to be negative ones, placing god in the gaps of knowledge, rather than genuine explanation of god.

Is it Zeus,
or Osiris,
or quantum woo?
science doesn't have the answer (yet),
but neither do you.

Though it has been written,
and some in this thread extol,
the truth of existence,
can be found in our soul.

that flitters and flutters,
embracing heaven's delights,
through the pink puffy clouds,
amidst angelic lights.

Yet what is oft' overlooked
in claims of this kind,
is how mistake and fantasy,
can also hinder the mind.

Conforming science to belief,
though a comfortable spot,
can be prone to delusion,
and is the believer's lot.

The greatest objection,
from those who don't claim to "know",
is a mere observation,
written below.

It doesn't seem scientific,
when nature's ways appear too odd,
to gather up our ignorance,
then proclaim it a "god".



Science doesn't claim to know. Why do creationists?


edit on 17-6-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ

We are simply attempting to take an objective look at the universe, and what we saw was beyond any so-called 'natural' description.


Why would it be beyond "natural" description? This implies immense knowledge. It implies knowledge that the universe cannot happen through natural forces (that are as yet unknown) and that a god certainly exists, outside of nature.

Again, that's fine for a belief and could be a wonderful philosophical discussion. The objection (IMO) is that it is a scientific one. It isn't. No amount of obscure woo (as has been proposed in this thread, not in your post) will make it valid scientifically.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Again, that's fine for a belief and could be a wonderful philosophical discussion. The objection (IMO) is that it is a scientific one. It isn't. No amount of obscure woo (as has been proposed in this thread, not in your post) will make it valid scientifically.



I agree with you that an objective view would be a scientific one. But in a lot of ways, our science sometimes has a bit of trouble maintaining its objectivity. Many scientists' visions are clouded with anti-theistic biases and prejudices. They make up new theories to try and explain the unexplainable. For example, M-Theory. It's just as idealistic as the belief in a conscious, unconditioned reality, yet the latter can explain everything that materialism cannot.




top topics



 
18
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join