Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

O dear baby jesus!

All these pages of the same argument. "You cant prove that god didn't do it."

Thank you Barcs for having the patience of a saint. You deserve some sort of award.

Why does the universe require a cause? Logic follows the rules of the natural order, for example; logic dictates that a square can't be a circle. The Big Bang is the beginning of the natural order.

How could you posit an argument based on logic and "common sense" before logic and common sense are validated by the natural order of the universe?

reply to post by Wertdagf


Thanks for your valuable contribution. Cheer on. I guess +1 for barcs.

Originally posted by Tetrarch42
Why does the universe require a cause? Logic follows the rules of the natural order, for example; logic dictates that a square can't be a circle. The Big Bang is the beginning of the natural order.

How could you posit an argument based on logic and "common sense" before logic and common sense are validated by the natural order of the universe?

You are simplifying things to the point of cheating your understanding of the true potential of reality. You are assuming the big bang happened. You are assuming it is the beginning of natural order. And then you are assuming everything we say is incorrect based off your assumptions. Its some if she floats shes a witch logic your using. I dont know where common sense comes in, but certainly logic is an interesting factor in relation to time, process, action, order, intelligence.

Originally posted by Barcs
Besides who's to say something has to be biological to have functionality? Look at the sun. It functions like a giant nuclear fusion reactor. It is not biological, yet it is incredibly complex and has functionality. Does that mean it was intelligently designed? No, it doesn't.

Again, I don't support the premise of the intelligent design movement. Mainly because I don't think it was God or aliens or some other supernatural entity. There's no evidence yet for the actual "what" that caused it. We only have the foot prints at this point.

I also don't have a problem with evolution and I don't care to disprove Darwin as ID attempts to do, because I actually consider the process to be very necessary to life's development. My posts thus far should indicate all of this if my actual saying so hasn't, so maybe you can back off injecting intelligent design (as the movement) into your arguments as it relates to what I'm saying? I realize the implications of design as it relates to an agent of some kind, but I can't nor won't say what it could be, just that there is evidence for design itself.

I will say that I think our universe is built for life, and that life exists in many forms all around the cosmos. I'll only go as far as to say that I think consciousness has something to do with it. And since intelligence is a derivative of consciousness this is why I find relevance in this topic. But we already know that both of these traits are not specific to just humans, so there's no reason to assume a human type deity is behind it all or that we're the only lifeforms that get to experience stuff.

But I digress- to get back to your question, and to adhere to my argument that design is evident in the form, function and purpose of nature, it would also have to include other systems beyond biological and chemical ones. The sun is a big part of why we are here. There are several parameters by which the entire universe formed that needed to be just so for the development of intelligent(conscious) life as we know it. These parameters govern the entire process from the cosmological level down to the chemical level (the jury still out on quantum physics). So naturally design would apply to all of it. Action, reaction, interaction, thru form, function, purpose - governs the universe. So what is the basis for these relationships? Awareness?

Appealing to the complexity of cells doesn't even come close to proving it was originally intelligently designed. How do you know that cells were originally that complex?

It's not an appeal to just the complexity of cells and it really doesn't matter at what point during a cells development we look. The point to be understood is that there is specific functionality and purpose. Cells were created for the specific function and purpose of life, nothing else. To say that it's undesigned is to say that it's all just random and pointless - which has no relevance to the development and function of life as we know it, and actually contradicts evolution. You can't have it both ways.

A strawman is a false definition of a word or concept that is intentionally set up to be easily refuted. That is not even close to what I did there. Appearance of design does not suggest an intelligent designer is necessary. I didn't falsely define anything. The dude didn't even make an argument about it he just appealed to appearance. Call it what you want but strawman is the wrong term.

Exactly, and that is absolutely what you did there. As you so eloquently demonstrated with your posting of what you falsely claimed to be designed (an erosional pattern- really?), as a means to refute the argument for design in biology (a logarithmically shaped plant), which actually does meet the necessary criteria of form, function, purpose. It's as if you were actually trying to associate apples to moon rocks.

But your photo of an erosional pattern that only looks pretty to you meets very little to no criteria for design. I realize this is the same brush of "logic" you've been trying to paint my argument with but I'm sorry it's not the same no matter what geological photo you use. You might be able argue form, but with absolutely no relation to purpose or function. Because there is none.

(continued)

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
The essence of your experience of existence is consciousness and proves you are you. What was the determining factor that made you you and me me? Why are you experiencing existence from your view point at this time in space? Why weren't you something or someone else somewhere else? Or anything or anywhere at all? Why are you experiencing now and not 1000 yrs ago or 10000 yrs from now. What determines who is who and when? I have a twin sister- born within minutes of each other- so why am I not my sister or her me? I could keep going but you get the picture by..

It doesn't matter. None of that can be objectively proven.

People just keep listing things that science doesn't fully know and claiming it proves the other side, but it does not. It's an appeal to ignorance and nothing more.

Spoken like a true materialist stuck in the cage of westernized thinking. "Doesn't matter because it can't be objectively proven." "Can't prove consciousness so it does not exist." How is that not an appeal to ignorance?

Funny how that doesn't stop ideas like the multiverse and string theory, with its 10 or 20 unseen dimensions, from making its way through scientific journals. Apparently leaps of logic don't seem to really matter much; except only as a convenient term in an argument of course.

Design in itself is not intelligent design. You keep saying 'design' this and 'design' that but this thread is about an intelligent first cause. Design via evolution or erosion is NOT intelligent design and cannot be compared to it.

The common denominator is design. And you're mistaken when you throw erosion in there as it doesn't fit into any of it. It's completely irrelevant. A red herring as you might like to say. Evolution on the other hand, as you so acknowledged, is the design process for life.

The steps WERE designed; just not intelligently. Arguing non intelligent design is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread. You might as well argue my case by bringing that up, because my argument is NOT that life wasn't designed. It's that it there is no evidence whatsoever that shows it was INTENTIONALLY and CONSCIOUSLY designed by an INTELLIGENT entity.

No, the steps weren't designed. You're mistaken, again. There's no such thing as a random non-intelligent design- like your erosion shows. It's a complete oxymoron. That's the whole point- design absolutely implies some sort of an intelligence or consciousness. It's found in all of life. We haven't identified the agent, ok I get it, but why should that mean that design isn't present? You've agreed that life is by design. As is the process of evolution. We can observe the attributes of design in all of it. You can stop there if you want.

I understand, you don't like the implications of design so you are forced to deflect the argument into one based on subjectivity saying that it only "appears" designed. Like that of an erosion pattern. NO, that's a fallacious argument and is not at all relevant to this discussion. Erosion has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

I'll continue to stand by the evidence for design as it pertains to form, function and purpose of life and the processes that give way to it. It's all there. You can not in any way claim the same for erosion, I'm sorry. It's apples to moon rocks, so perhaps try a different argument.

Originally posted by Tetrarch42
Why does the universe require a cause? Logic follows the rules of the natural order, for example; logic dictates that a square can't be a circle. The Big Bang is the beginning of the natural order.

And the Big Bang and all that is the universe once fit into a tiny point only millimeters in size. Gotta love logic!

Sure, why not? Is it any less likely than "God did it"?

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by Tetrarch42
Why does the universe require a cause? Logic follows the rules of the natural order, for example; logic dictates that a square can't be a circle. The Big Bang is the beginning of the natural order.

And the Big Bang and all that is the universe once fit into a tiny point only millimeters in size. Gotta love logic!

If the singularity theory is logic or not depends on how you think the void of space is like, before the singularity was formed.

It is not hard to reason that the void before the singularity was formed was a lot closer to a absolute vacuum then the space within our universe is. Our universe would never expand if the void of space surrounding our universe have greater presure than the vacuum space within our universe.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Again, I don't support the premise of the intelligent design movement. Mainly because I don't think it was God or aliens or some other supernatural entity. There's no evidence yet for the actual "what" that caused it. We only have the foot prints at this point.

And yet you run around here preaching the gospel of consciousness and a supernatural universal transcendent soul like they were real entities.
As long as you are invoking the invisible man hypothesis in one form or another you belong over with the theists.

I also don't have a problem with evolution and I don't care to disprove Darwin as ID attempts to do, because I actually consider the process to be very necessary to life's development. My posts thus far should indicate all of this if my actual saying so hasn't, so maybe you can back off injecting intelligent design (as the movement) into your arguments as it relates to what I'm saying? I realize the implications of design as it relates to an agent of some kind, but I can't nor won't say what it could be, just that there is evidence for design itself.

You have posted zero proof that life was designed, "how's that model coming?"
Ramblings, complete with acknowledging Darwin proves my point about the need and efficacy of evidence, and a plea that you have some efficacy and yet, to sum it up, you still have nothing to show.

I will say that I think our universe is built for life, and that life exists in many forms all around the cosmos. I'll only go as far as to say that I think consciousness has something to do with it. And since intelligence is a derivative of consciousness this is why I find relevance in this topic. But we already know that both of these traits are not specific to just humans, so there's no reason to assume a human type deity is behind it all or that we're the only lifeforms that get to experience stuff.

You "think" our universe is built for life? I think it's safe to say 99.99% of the universe is unfit for life.
No one reading your stuff believes that we've even started to understand anything about consciousness
You say you will not side with theists for advocating an invisible man in the sky. Yet your philosophy could involve multiple invisible men as the ethereal consciousness that is each of us. Why you think your brand of invisible man hypothesis is any less worthy of derision than any other remains unclear
Despite what you may believe about yourself, your thinking is part of the problem, not the solution.
So, yes, go back to your corner with the theists.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to [url= by Wertdagf[/url]

 

Thanks for your valuable contribution. Cheer on. I guess +1 for barcs.

He has a point though. Answering you guys can be incredibly tedious when it's the same assertions being made and the same questions being posed (albeit posed slightly differently each time) over and over and over.......

ID has brought nothing new to the table for the past couple of hundred years, maybe if it had we'd have something new and worthwhile to discuss in threads like this.

Answering and debating theists on the subject wouldn't then be quite so tedious (for a short while anyway).

But as it is, those that have the time and patience to wade through the ID posts and answer them conclusively do deserve at least some recognition IMO.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to [url= by Wertdagf[/url]

 

Thanks for your valuable contribution. Cheer on. I guess +1 for barcs.

He has a point though. Answering you guys can be incredibly tedious when it's the same assertions being made and the same questions being posed (albeit posed slightly differently each time) over and over and over.......

ID has brought nothing new to the table for the past couple of hundred years, maybe if it had we'd have something new and worthwhile to discuss in threads like this.

Answering and debating theists on the subject wouldn't then be quite so tedious (for a short while anyway).

But as it is, those that have the time and patience to wade through the ID posts and answer them conclusively do deserve at least some recognition IMO.

My problem is were simply trading one mystery for another. Instead of how was the universe created it simply becomes who created god. So in the end it accomplishes nothing for our understanding of the universe.

If the universe is all that exists, if it is the totality of reality (subatomic particles in space), Its very interesting to me why the exact finite quantity and volume of energy that exists, exists. Of course if it was any amount it would be equally valid to ask this question and wonder, but still interesting that it is the exact amount it is. Even still, it is a relatively massive amount, the universe is ridiculously huge. So though it is this specific finite amount of stuff, it is split up infinitesimally, and is always changing.

If the universe is all that exists, then there is nothing beyond it? That is hard to imagine, (any of the realistic scenarios are hard to imagine) that there is just a blob of stuff, in the middle of nowhere, it is all that exists, has ever existed, and ever will, and it is just there. Truely think about that. All that exists. The only thing that is real, that is truely true, and there is nothing else. Very strange. So if that is the case I can see that it would be difficult to posit a God that created this. It appears it would just be (as the materialists and scientists view) a mass of math, which is forced by its nature to create patterns and order. It would be difficult to posit god, because the mass itself is the only thing that exists, and therefore all that is doing the creating is its natural nature. However there still can be Gods of the intelligent designing variety such as humans and other intelligences that arise. Also consciousness and intelligence and everything that ever comes to existence within the universe will from an objective standpoint only be comparable patterns of complex material interactions relative to other patterns of complex material interactions.

I guess I just wish science could answer or work on more of the confounding questions such as consciousness and things like what science should be used for, what the universe is, what energy is and means, what space is, how and why does the universe exist.

The opposite of appealing to ignorance is to ignore ignorance.

reply to post by dragonridr


How does science explain the creation of the universe? If you say Big bang theory, and I say that doesnt make sense (the part about everything being contained in nothing at least, where was it all before that, and what caused all the everything nothing to begin being everything) and you say I just dont understand it, and then I say simply and logically try to explain that one part, and then youll say...

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

How does science explain the creation of the universe? If you say Big bang theory, and I say that doesnt make sense (the part about everything being contained in nothing at least, where was it all before that, and what caused all the everything nothing to begin being everything) and you say I just dont understand it, and then I say simply and logically try to explain that one part, and then youll say...

edit on 13-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

Well first no one said there was nothing in physics theres something called scalar fields.we could talk about the higgs boson here for example the higgs field is throughout the universe and was here before it. This allows the higgs boson to give mass to objects.well these fields can lead to a false vacuum which in physics would have to move to a lower energy state or lower vacuum. This occurs through quantum tunnelling and creates a bubble. After the bubble is created, it will expand and to any “observers” inside it will resemble a self-contained universe. Now these bubbles can even collide leading to creation of again more universes. The key to us understanding what happened is scalar fields thats why cern discovery of the higgs boson was important its allowing us to get a glimps into what scalar fields are and how they work.

reply to post by ImaFungi


You believe in unevidenced items as a matter of faith in your philosophy.
We don't scientifically have an understanding of consciousness so you can't just fill it with whatever unevidenced crap that floats your boat.
Simply defining god as some vague and ambiguous cosmic consciousness doesn't really make any difference in the assessment of your ideas as blatant bullsh#t and nothing more than superstition.


Materialist Machinations

If we are to assess the hard problem of consciousness within a quantum mechanical paradigm we must first disentangle the issue of entanglement from the issue of decoherence in order to establish a coherent metaphysical response to unjustifiable physicalist assumptions. Only then can the materialistic hegemony be challenged sufficiently for the discombobulated mind of the materialist to offer itself as evidence of the separation of mind and body. After all how can one experience such a superposition of multiple mental states but wholly subjectively? In the face of such conclusivity even the most ardent materialist will be forced to confront the state-variable orthogonality of awareness as a function of consciousness rather than mere neural activity. So how do we achieve this end? The key here lies at the quantum-classical boundary and the mind-body boundary. Can a superposition of minds be expressed in terms of the phase angle of the “id” and the “ego” and if so will the collapse of the wave function equate to a rotationally symmetric disambiguation of shared awareness? The answer emphatically is – Yes. Because the internal act of subjectively observing one’s own conscious experience results in the collapse of the integrated wave function such that multiple individual minds emerge from the disentangled whole. Evidently such separation has an inherently probabilistic component as well as temporal, as opposed to instantaneous, aspect. This brief period of semi-superposition equates to what is commonly referred to as “shared experience” resulting in the metaphysical fact that objectivity is a functional representation of collectively achieved subjectivity. So now we see that the only way to maintain the materialist paradigm is to deny that the orthogonal compatibility of disentangled decoherent minds can exist. Or – In other words – The materialist finds themselves necessarily denying the existence of objectivity itself. Objectivity - The very foundation upon which the materialist call for “objective evidence” is founded. Thus the materialist holds a contradictory and logically indefensible position the very cognitive dissonance of which serves to conclusively exemplify the separation between mind and body. Cogito ergo sum.

Omnes suus bullsh#t. Sed bene dixit.

Confusionem inimicis nostris!!!!!


The philosophy that consciousness is an emergent property in the universe has a resonance even in me. I can agree that we are made of the same matter as the rest of the universe and, yes, there must be a connection. We are part of this universe and we are conscious. Life is an emergent property of the universe. It is a beautiful and comfortable feeling.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

How does science explain the creation of the universe? If you say Big bang theory, and I say that doesnt make sense (the part about everything being contained in nothing at least, where was it all before that, and what caused all the everything nothing to begin being everything) and you say I just dont understand it, and then I say simply and logically try to explain that one part, and then youll say...

edit on 13-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

What if the absolute empty void formed the singularity. There is nothing ilogical about it being possible. Not if you put our laws of physics a side. Because our laws of physics did not exist before the big bang. Our laws of physics were formed by the expanding singularity.

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

How does science explain the creation of the universe? If you say Big bang theory, and I say that doesnt make sense (the part about everything being contained in nothing at least, where was it all before that, and what caused all the everything nothing to begin being everything) and you say I just dont understand it, and then I say simply and logically try to explain that one part, and then youll say...

edit on 13-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

What if the absolute empty void formed the singularity. There is nothing ilogical about it being possible. Not if you put our laws of physics a side. Because our laws of physics did not exist before the big bang. Our laws of physics were formed out of the expanding singularity.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

First, I am injecting ID into my arguments because this thread is about an intelligent first cause and you are arguing that design requires intelligence. Intelligence requires a brain. That's the problem with this whole thing. You say you disagree with the ID movement, but your arguments are suggesting intelligence is required for life. Where did this intelligence come from if not from an intelligent entity? You probably feel intelligence is some underlying property of matter/energy, but that's a different concept. If you wish to believe there is an underlying force that connects all things, I can see that, but to call it an intelligence really has no basis in reality.

How can you say that evolution counts as a designer of life but natural forces such as wind and water do not count as a designers of landscapes? Please explain this double standard in your argument. Your accusation of straw man is illogical. Design is relative as I perfectly demonstrated, but it seems you are making out the design of life to be more than the design of erosion when both are the results of natural processes. Are you claiming the sun doesn't have a function or purpose? Are you claiming evolution is an intelligent process, while erosion is not? What intelligence is involved in evolution? It is genetic mutations and natural selection. Where does the intelligence come in?

No, the steps weren't designed. You're mistaken, again. There's no such thing as a random non-intelligent design- like your erosion shows. It's a complete oxymoron. That's the whole point- design absolutely implies some sort of an intelligence or consciousness. It's found in all of life. We haven't identified the agent, ok I get it, but why should that mean that design isn't present? You've agreed that life is by design. As is the process of evolution. We can observe the attributes of design in all of it. You can stop there if you want.

If you can't show evidence that intelligence is required for evolution, your argument is a non sequitar to mine. Now you say that design requires intelligence. If that's the case, nothing was designed except human creations based on the available evidence.

I'll continue to stand by the evidence for design as it pertains to form, function and purpose of life and the processes that give way to it. It's all there. You can not in any way claim the same for erosion, I'm sorry. It's apples to moon rocks, so perhaps try a different argument.

You'll stand by WHAT evidence? There is none. You keep saying it has form, function and purpose, but those terms can also apply to stars, black holes, gravity, the earth, and tons of other non biological energy forms and forces. Functionality alone cannot prove design. I know that life is much different than non life, but it's still an argument with no objective evidence whatsoever.

So naturally design would apply to all of it. Action, reaction, interaction, thru form, function, purpose - governs the universe. So what is the basis for these relationships? Awareness?

The laws of physics. Purpose is subjective. The universe is what it is. I don't see how how functionality automatically equals design. Purpose is assigned by humans. Dirt has a purpose and a function. It may not be as complex as a cell, but without it the cells of the plants would not develop. The sun is functional and does not require intelligence to work. Function does not prove design, sorry.

Cells were created for the specific function and purpose of life, nothing else.

They were? Can you please show me when and how they were created and the intentions of purpose and how you know they were designed for that exact reason. Purpose is subjective, like I said. One species' trash is another species' treasure.

To say that it's undesigned is to say that it's all just random and pointless - which has no relevance to the development and function of life as we know it, and actually contradicts evolution. You can't have it both ways.

You keep using terminology that doesn't apply. Pointless is a subjective term. Random is a poor description of anything, especially when it has a SPECIFIC cause. It's not random, it's natural. It's funny for you it has to be one extreme or the other. Either it was specifically designed for a specific purpose at every step of the way, or it was all random fluke accidents. I don't understand that argument in the least. Unguided, does not mean random.

I don't believe consciousness is relevant to this discussion. It's a direct appeal to the unknown. You can't objectively prove consciousness exists, or is separate from the the brain, so it can't be used as an argument for design. It's that simple.

Funny how that doesn't stop ideas like the multiverse and string theory, with its 10 or 20 unseen dimensions, from making its way through scientific journals. Apparently leaps of logic don't seem to really matter much; except only as a convenient term in an argument of course.

Mutliverse / string theory, like consciousness cannot be proven. I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be pursued or studied. I'm arguing that they cannot be used as arguments for design. They are red herrings in this discussion.

To me, it seems like the main issue is with the use of the term, "intelligence."

Originally posted by ImaFungi
How does something being simple and getting complex over time deny the existence of intelligence in anyway, when what you would deem intelligent designs do the same thing?

It doesn't deny the existence of intelligence, but at the same time it doesn't suggest it either. The primary argument people are using has to do with cell complexity. They feel that it is like mini machinery, and therefor it couldn't have arisen naturally. The problem is, they aren't addressing ORIGINAL DNA / cell structure. Granted we don't have any knowledge on the subject of 3 billion year old DNA, but using modern cell structure as an appeal to design is not logical in the least.

The fact alone that it took 3 billion years for us to get here suggests the opposite of intelligence or intelligent guidance. Life on earth has had it's fair share of ups and downs. If an intelligent force was guiding it, they didn't do a very intelligent / efficient job of it.

What is intelligence? Try to prove to me it exists, in what way does it exist?

in·tel·li·gence
/inˈtelijəns/
Noun
1. The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
2. The collection of information of military or political value: "military intelligence".

Obviously we are referring to definition #1. Humans and other intelligent mammals have been heavily studied and we have been able to estimate their abilities to acquire knowledge and skills. Maybe you know something that I do not, but last I checked you can't do that without a brain.

How does science explain the creation of the universe? If you say Big bang theory, and I say that doesnt make sense (the part about everything being contained in nothing at least, where was it all before that, and what caused all the everything nothing to begin being everything)

Everything being contained in nothing? Where does big bang theory say that? Big bang theory talks about how everything was condensed together at one point, and then expanded.