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: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Title of thread "Intelligence as first cause". Intelligence is defined by complex processes. Our consciousness was not there at the Bigbang, we did not create ourselves. I apply the same logic to any consciousness prior to the Bigbang, the energy was there(not able to be explained, I don't believe there is an answer, and saying that hawkings, just one human, says it couldn't have happened by chance, is a huge assumption of knowledge of all of reality, what is chance really? the chance that something happens the way it does is 100%, we apply probabilities where we lack understanding), it went through the motions of time, and consciousness emerged. However, I don't believe any consciousness, would be able to justify its own existence. For example, the consciousness that could have been prior to the bigbang would have emerged over time from the "bigbang"(or whatever preceded it) of its own time (pre our bigbang), and thus has the same relative philosophical problems that humans have.

Maybe I can break it down further, perhaps "energy" always existed, and consciousness always arose from that energy over time, obviously these concepts of "always existed" are pretty much beyond us to comprehend, and there is no "answer" as such, but lets take a snippet of "whatever created the period before the big bang, and whatever created our bigbang" (note, creation isn't the right word, the are more points of extreme change in the system)

Let's assume there is a cyclical nature to reality. Energy in a system, lets say something equivalent to hydrogen that exploded onto the scene, lets call this BB1, and lets call our own bigbang, BB2. the energy goes through all the motions and configurations of matter that is possible from BB1(there is no explanation for why anything exists of course), and then it reaches a point where it feeds back into itself in something that represents the patterns of "consciousness". the consciousness becomes aware, yet is unable to justify why anything exists at all. Perhaps even this consciousness used its will to influence the next stage of the universe(our big bang), just as a previous consciousness to its own had done.. Maybe all the universe is, is an endless cycle of consciousness emerging and affecting reality itself in order to change form, experience all scenarios imaginable.

Basically. On a fundamental level, based on the observations of our reality, Intelligence did not come before the base components that would form consciousness.




posted on May, 24 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by WorShip
 


Awareness is not a result of any components. It is the emptiness in which everything is witnessed. Our consciousness is no different from "God's" consciousness. In fact, each of us is God, experiencing the infinite aspects of God and eventually realizing our true nature as God. The apparent separation between us is an illusion, since we are all actually the same being, having different experiences.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Well, reality seems to disagree with your statement that awareness is not the result of any components. is a single particle aware? are there no processes by which thought occurs?

"the emptiness in which everything is witnessed?" can you break this down into scientific terms because i'm not sure what you mean, it seems more like some kind of scripture from an archaic text.

Well, if you had read what I wrote, you would realise you're agreeing with me, I too believe there is no difference between consciousness regardless of when/where it formed. Our consciousness isn't responsible for the existence of anything, and no other such consciousness was ever the cause of energy.

Im glad you've come around!

edit: I realise we use different terms for consciousness though, to you God = consciousness. However, Consciousness != creator. If that were true then you would be able to create your own little universe (although perhaps this is closer to the truth in an abstract way, lol).
edit on 24-5-2013 by WorShip because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   
You idiotic contention is pretty much based on one single point



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 reason I say this is idiotic is, that the only reason for your belief in God is that you cannot comprehend the fact that your existence is utterly un-substantial/important and that something of this complexity can occur by accident.

Your contention is not supported by any fact, other than pointing out what we know exists and claiming only God could create something like that.

There is no reference to gravitational forces and electromagnetic forces in any of the scriptures, and if God wanted us to know he created them, he would have made their existence obvious in the word of God, which he didn't.

More to the point, if God exists, he would have made his existence obvious. Otherwise he is just a cruel jerk-off that is spiteful and is just generally douchey. Not a God I want to believe in.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by WorShip
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Well, reality seems to disagree with your statement that awareness is not the result of any components. is a single particle aware? are there no processes by which thought occurs?


Actually, yes, a single particle is aware. It is, in fact, made of pure awareness (nothingness). Also thoughts are created in the mind, they are not fundamentally part of consciousness.

Have you heard of the double-slit experiment? I am not going to go into detail, but basically what it proved is that when a photon was being observed, it would behave like a particle, and if it was not, it would behave like a wave. While the observer did not necessarily have to be a live human (they used measuring instruments), what it doesn't explain is how the photon 'knew' whether or not it was being watched. Fundamentally, consciousness solves this problem.

In a variation of this experiment, the time it took for the 'information' to be transferred from the observer to the photon, 'alerting' it that it was being watched, was measured. The scientists found that said information was travelling at at least 10,000 times the speed of light in order for it to have gotten to the photon in the amount of time it did. Scientists still do not understand how this is possible. Fundamentally, consciousness solves this problem.



"the emptiness in which everything is witnessed?" can you break this down into scientific terms because i'm not sure what you mean, it seems more like some kind of scripture from an archaic text.


I am afraid that doing so would require vocabulary beyond what the English language provides. I do hope you understand.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by WorShip
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


Well, reality seems to disagree with your statement that awareness is not the result of any components. is a single particle aware? are there no processes by which thought occurs?


Actually, yes, a single particle is aware. It is, in fact, made of pure awareness (nothingness). Also thoughts are created in the mind, they are not fundamentally part of consciousness.

Have you heard of the double-slit experiment? I am not going to go into detail, but basically what it proved is that when a photon was being observed, it would behave like a particle, and if it was not, it would behave like a wave. While the observer did not necessarily have to be a live human (they used measuring instruments), what it doesn't explain is how the photon 'knew' whether or not it was being watched. Fundamentally, consciousness solves this problem.

In a variation of this experiment, the time it took for the 'information' to be transferred from the observer to the photon, 'alerting' it that it was being watched, was measured. The scientists found that said information was travelling at at least 10,000 times the speed of light in order for it to have gotten to the photon in the amount of time it did. Scientists still do not understand how this is possible. Fundamentally, consciousness solves this problem.



"the emptiness in which everything is witnessed?" can you break this down into scientific terms because i'm not sure what you mean, it seems more like some kind of scripture from an archaic text.


I am afraid that doing so would require vocabulary beyond what the English language provides. I do hope you understand.


Actually, I believe you've misinterpreted the double slit experiment, It does not mean that a single particle is aware, like a human is. and you have not described how that makes the particle aware, you've merely taken an anomalous thing in nature and construed it to support your theory that consciousness came first. also, address the rest of my posts above.
edit on 24-5-2013 by WorShip because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant

The reason I say this is idiotic is, that the only reason for your belief in God is that you cannot comprehend the fact that your existence is utterly un-substantial/important and that something of this complexity can occur by accident.


Something of literally infinite complexity can occur by accident? Please, do explain how.



Your contention is not supported by any fact, other than pointing out what we know exists and claiming only God could create something like that.


The contention that a creator doesn't exist is not supported by any fact, either. The difference between my contention, and that of an atheist, is that I can explain how and why the universe exists. An atheist cannot.



There is no reference to gravitational forces and electromagnetic forces in any of the scriptures, and if God wanted us to know he created them, he would have made their existence obvious in the word of God, which he didn't.


Theologists are stupid. Any theology-based text is just a tribute to that stupidity.

Also, and I may be wrong, but it seems that you are claiming that God is only responsible for part of the universe, and not all of it. Like I said, I may be wrong, but that is what it sounds like you are implying.



More to the point, if God exists, he would have made his existence obvious. Otherwise he is just a cruel jerk-off that is spiteful and is just generally douchey. Not a God I want to believe in.


God has made Her existence obvious. What greater form could you possibly imagine for God, other than the entirety of creation itself? Formlessness is form. Being is becoming.

If your 'disbelief' (I use quotes because any belief is fundamentally irrelevant) in God is based on the fact that He doesn't just swoop in and relinquish all your responsibility and leave you in a bubble of constant pleasure, you have another thing coming. You, and you alone, are responsible for your life. Everything that you see around you is of your own creation. I mean that literally. You can choose what you see. While there may seem to be things that are out of your control (disease, for instance), you are always responsible for the way you perceive every event. It's like being afraid of the dark. You could see the situation for what it really is (the lack of photons in that particular area) or you can succumb to an irrational fear which really makes no sense at all.
edit on 25-5-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by WorShip

Actually, I believe you've misinterpreted the double slit experiment, It does not mean that a single particle is aware, like a human is. and you have not described how that makes the particle aware, you've merely taken an anomalous thing in nature and construed it to support your theory that consciousness came first. also, address the rest of my posts above.
edit on 24-5-2013 by WorShip because: (no reason given)


I did not 'construe' anything to support anything. I am simply stating that the fact that a single photon holds the ability to know that it is being watched, without any sort of physical connection to the observer, is easily explained if one takes into account the fundamental nature of consciousness in the universe. If you are unable to acknowledge even the most direct proof of my theory (along with every other piece of evidence that others and myself have contributed to this thread), than I honestly don't know what to tell you.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


There is nothing extraordinary about common logic.

Quite right, but your arguments are not logical.
  1. You are assuming by induction that all things require a cause. This is an unprovable assumption, similar to assuming that the sun will rise tomorrow. Inductive conclusions are not truths.

  2. You assume that complexity implies a Creator. How can the Creator be more simple than thing that was created? And if it can, how does complexity emerge from simplicity by a willed process? Does an egg will itself to become a chicken?

Also, you draw the following false conclusions and present them as facts:


There could not have been a 'time before' God, because both the concepts of 'time' and 'before' did not exist.

Actually, time is a property of the universe – one of its integral dimensions. It does not and did not exist independently. Therefore there is no sense in asking what happened before the Big Bang. There was no 'before the Big Bang.' Incidentally, this disposes of any necessity for the existence of a universal Creator.


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.

We postulate the existence of 'dark matter' (meaning, frankly, we know not what) because we can see that this we-know-not-what causes visible effects in the universe. We see no effects that would lead us to suppose they were caused by a god.

To say that 'we assume God exists because we can see that God caused the universe' is a case of assuming what is to be proved. This, again, is illogical.


[Scientists] have successfully deflected possibly the most important and fundamental question in science, which is, "what caused the universe".

On the contrary, a great deal of scientific thought has gone into the question. The trouble is, it is not a question that is very accessible to scientific investigation, so all hypotheses (including God) must remain speculative. Science tends to concentrate on questions that can be answered.

God's existence is not among those questions. There is no way to prove by logic that God exists; better logicians than you have tried and failed. Among these failures were Plato, Aristotle, St. Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes and Kant. You have a lot of reading to do before you post on this topic again.

None of this proves that God is a fiction. Such a being may well exist – and may even have created the universe. But we can't prove this true by logic, nor can we investigate it empirically. It is a matter for faith and faith alone.

By the way, the paper you posted is quite bizarre. The existence of something called a 'life force' is unnecessary to explain any phenomenon in biology. Darwin pointed this out in correspondence with Lyell, Hooker and others even before The Origin of Species was published. Also, life does not arise out of the mere combination of elements, as the author of that paper states. We do not know how life arises.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to several posts by charles1952
 


I think this may help with the complexity argument...

No help at all, unfortunately. At the end of the day, it's merely an opinion that the universe is too complex to have arisen naturally. Such a proposition is impossible to prove and, as I say in my reply to the OP, inductive conclusions are not truths. Remember that the thread title says 'why it must exist', not 'why it probably exists'.

You quoted:


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.

Only if the universe needs a cause to exist. That is not proven; and there isn't the faintest shred of evidence to suggest that it does.


Something brought the Universe into existence.

This is assuming what you hope to prove.

*


reply to post by arpgme
 


The second law of thermodynamics says energy can NOT be CREATED or DESTROYED. So the energy used to cause the big bang was not created - it was always there.

It may surprise you to learn that the total energy of the universe is, and has always been, zero. Here's a link: A Universe from Nothing. Stephen Hawking also points this out in A Brief History of Time.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   
If something did create all this then who created him, add that together
about a trillion times and you see why the idea of things HAVING to be
created by intelligence is just ridiculous, not that its impossible but
it isn't anything like what religion claims. religion and science simply
do not stand on the same ground at all, one seeks answers to question
while one tries to force answers that are incorrect to be accepted as
100% truth, science claims to be seeking answers and has provided
many, religion claims to already have them and yet cannot provide
correct answers to anything, it does not cure things are further our
understanding of the universe, it attempts to keep a choke hold on
science and force entire generations to fall farther and farther behind
scientifically.

Here is a thought, the U.S. keeps falling farther and farther behind
the rest of the world in science, odd isnt it that religion is fighting
very hard to force FAKE science into schools via intelligent design
and so on, it sure seem uncanny that as one happens the other
gets way worse, yet somehow the lack of god in school is what
ruining school and not the lack of real science and not mysticism
disguised as science.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   
So the question implied on this thread is how was the universe created and one answer is by God. There is no evidence for this answer. The second answer is, by the Big Bang, but that is even less of an answer, since this doesn't address what was before, unless you say the singularity. But...what is that and what came before that? The sentence in the text book can't say the universe was created by the Big Bang.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 01:59 AM
link   
The Urantia Papers:

urantia.org

(1106.6) 101:2.7 Science ends its reason-search in the hypothesis of a First Cause. Religion does not stop in its flight of faith until it is sure of a God of salvation. The discriminating study of science logically suggests the reality and existence of an Absolute. Religion believes unreservedly in the existence and reality of a God who fosters personality survival. What metaphysics fails utterly in doing, and what even philosophy fails partially in doing, revelation does; that is, affirms that this First Cause of science and religion’s God of salvation are one and the same Deity.
edit on 25-5-2013 by eli9x because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I believe much of the issues of religion are based on the fact that theologists want something out of a so-called "God" figure. Their drive is the search for eternal salvation. What really should drive people is the search for truth. When you are searching for truth, the result is a completely objective point of view on what is, and not a projection of what people want.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ
I believe much of the issues of religion are based on the fact that theologists want something out of a so-called "God" figure. Their drive is the search for eternal salvation. What really should drive people is the search for truth. When you are searching for truth, the result is a completely objective point of view on what is, and not a projection of what people want.

If one is suffering the suffering will drive one to find the end of suffering.
Intelligence moves away from pain toward pleasure.
It is the game that will take every individual home.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


I was speaking particularly about science.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   

edit on 25-5-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Actually I disagree that his post sounded like a separation or God and other. Because we are all of God's essence we are ONE with Him, as a drop is part of the ocean but many drops make up the ocean. God is not separate from his "creation" (whether or not energy is created or not, the energy pre-existed before the matter Universe.

The Hindu Vedas and Puranas are a wonderful source of understanding of the Universe and Creation.


The Hindu cosmology and timeline is the closest to modern scientific timelines and even more which might indicate that the Big Bang is not the beginning of everything but just the start of the present cycle preceded by an infinite number of universes and to be followed by another infinite number of universes. It also includes an infinite number of universes at one given time.
The Rig Veda questions the origin of the cosmos in: "Neither being (sat) nor non-being was as yet. What was concealed? And where? And in whose protection?…Who really knows? Who can declare it? Whence was it born, and whence came this creation? The devas were born later than this world's creation, so who knows from where it came into existence? None can know from where creation has arisen, and whether he has or has not produced it. He who surveys it in the highest heavens, he alone knows-or perhaps does not know." (Rig Veda 10. 129)



The Rig Veda's view of the cosmos also sees one true divine principle self-projecting as the divine word, Vaak, 'birthing' the cosmos that we know, from the monistic Hiranyagarbha or Golden Womb. The Hiranyagarbha is alternatively viewed as Brahma, the creator who was in turn created by God, or as God (Brahman) himself. The universe is considered to constantly expand since creation and disappear into a thin haze after billions of years.[citation needed] An alternate view is that the universe begins to contract after reaching its maximum expansion limits until it disappears into a fraction of a millimeter.[citation needed] The creation begins anew after billions of years (Solar years) of non-existence
The puranic view asserts that the universe is created, destroyed, and re-created in an eternally repetitive series of cycles. In Hindu cosmology, a universe endures for about 4,320,000,000 years (one day of Brahma, the creator or kalpa) and is then destroyed by fire or water elements. At this point, Brahma rests for one night, just as long as the day. This process, named pralaya (literally especial dissolution in Sanskrit, commonly translated as Cataclysm), repeats for 100 Brahma years (311 Trillion, 40 Billion Human Years) that represents Brahma's lifespan. Brahma is regarded as a manifestation of Brahman as the creator.


en.wikipedia.org...

It is sad that people are so dependent on proof in the materialistic view that they forget their origin in God and their Divine inheritance, in essence, they do not give God the Glory for his great accomplishment and therefore make themselves above Him. This is the folly of secular scientific humanism.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bloodreviara
If something did create all this then who created him, add that together
about a trillion times and you see why the idea of things HAVING to be
created by intelligence is just ridiculous,


Nothing created "God" because there is no "before" God. Before the Big Bang the term "before" was irrelevant because time did not exist. Consciousness is timeless and therefore did not begin and will not end.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by amazing
So the question implied on this thread is how was the universe created and one answer is by God. There is no evidence for this answer. The second answer is, by the Big Bang, but that is even less of an answer, since this doesn't address what was before, unless you say the singularity. But...what is that and what came before that? The sentence in the text book can't say the universe was created by the Big Bang.


What was created though? The idea is that there has been 'something' created. But what is there really?
What can you see? The colours and sounds, the smell and taste, the sensation that is here now is all you can know for sure but you cannot hold on to any of these appearances. The appearance is constantly changing so what has been created?
There never has been a 'something' - there are no 'things'.
There is only ever this (presence) and this always looks different.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join