Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

I was speaking particularly about science.

Are you saying you are seeking scientific proof (truth)? I am not sure I understand your reply to my post to you, your post said nothing of science, you spoke of religion.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Thank you.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I am saying that science should be the search for truth. The unbiased search for the unbiased truth.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

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.

And this is why materialism should be self-defeating.

Originally posted by HarryTZ

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.

God is nothing - this is nothing.
Time is a word that appears to exist but it can only do so presently.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

I am saying that science should be the search for truth. The unbiased search for the unbiased truth.

All seeking will lead one astray. Seeking is looking for something that is not here - if it is not here, it cannot be true.

reply to post by bloodreviara

If something did create all this then who created him, add that together

I tried to quote more of your post but it didn't take...anyway, Divine Intelligence just exists. This is the great mystery and the ancients understood that. When Moses went up the mountain and the Burning Bush which burned but was NOT consumed spoke to him and told Moses to tell the Children of God "tell them I Am hath sent thee". This is a statement of BEING which is what God, energy, is. So God, I Am is telling the Children of God that He exists as Being. He is manifest and unmanifest, he is time and space and he is before time and space are created.

"I think, therefore I AM". (Rene Descartes)

Initially, Descartes arrives at only a single principle: thought exists. Thought cannot be separated from me, therefore, I exist (Discourse on the Method and Principles of Philosophy). Most famously, this is known as cogito ergo sum (English: "I think, therefore I am").

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Existence appears to exist. However - it can only appear to exist presently. Therefore presence is the first and last, the alpha and the omega.
There is only ever presence, with words appearing that give the impression that there is anything else.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Sounds a bit like Ram Das

Here's my response

www.gita-society.com...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


This right here and right now is the 'presence' of the lord. There is only here and now but the mind dreams of other. Man does not know anything of here and now because man lives in a dream of separation - he is always there and then.

reply to post 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.

This is a materialist point of view, ie that consciousness exists only as a conglomerate of particles clumped together in a complex system(the brain) and therefore individual particles do not have awareness. If the individual particles do not have (God) awareness, then how can a bunch of particles connected together with no awareness have awareness?
Something cannot come from nothing. (more Descartes)Therefore the void is not really nothing as only nothing can come from nothing.

So, Descartes states, “I clearly understand that there is more reality in an infinite substance than there is in a finite one.” [xviii] So, he concludes that God necessarily exists
Hume believes there is a flaw in this proof of God’s existence. Once again, Hume attacks that which is so clear and distinct to Descartes. In contrast to Descartes, Hume (who is an empiricist and atheist in contrast to Descartes who is a rationalist and theist) argues that we create the idea of God through adding and subtracting from the ideas we receive from the impressions or feelings.[xix] So, Hume posits that God does not necessarily exist because we create the idea of God from our impressions or feelings, and thus the idea of him is not innate in us.

In contrast to Hume, Descartes believes that the idea of God is innate in us. He states that “like the mark of a craftsman impressed upon his work” God, “should have endowed me with this idea.” [xx] He further argues that God created man in his image and likeness and if God did not exist, it would be impossible to have the idea of God in us.

www.ithaca.edu...

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Thank you.

You are most welcome

Urantia:

www.urantia.org...
Paper 57 The Origin of Urantia*

(651.1) 57:0.1 IN PRESENTING excerpts from the archives of Jerusem for the records of Urantia respecting its antecedents and early history, we are directed to reckon time in terms of current usage — the present leap-year calendar of 365¼ days to the year. As a rule, no attempt will be made to give exact years, though they are of record. We will use the nearest whole numbers as the better method of presenting these historic facts.

(651.2) 57:0.2 When referring to an event as of one or two millions of years ago, we intend to date such an occurrence back that number of years from the early decades of the twentieth century of the Christian era. We will thus depict these far-distant events as occurring in even periods of thousands, millions, and billions of years.
1. The Andronover Nebula

(651.3) 57:1.1 Urantia is of origin in your sun, and your sun is one of the multifarious offspring of the Andronover nebula, which was onetime organized as a component part of the physical power and material matter of the local universe of Nebadon. And this great nebula itself took origin in the universal force-charge of space in the superuniverse of Orvonton, long, long ago.

(651.4) 57:1.2 At the time of the beginning of this recital, the Primary Master Force Organizers of Paradise had long been in full control of the space-energies which were later organized as the Andronover nebula.

(651.5) 57:1.3 987,000,000,000 years ago associate force organizer and then acting inspector number 811,307 of the Orvonton series, traveling out from Uversa, reported to the Ancients of Days that space conditions were favorable for the initiation of materialization phenomena in a certain sector of the, then, easterly segment of Orvonton.

(651.6) 57:1.4 900,000,000,000 years ago, the Uversa archives testify, there was recorded a permit issued by the Uversa Council of Equilibrium to the superuniverse government authorizing the dispatch of a force organizer and staff to the region previously designated by inspector number 811,307. The Orvonton authorities commissioned the original discoverer of this potential universe to execute the mandate of the Ancients of Days calling for the organization of a new material creation.*

(...)

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post 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.

This is a materialist point of view, ie that consciousness exists only as a conglomerate of particles clumped together in a complex system(the brain) and therefore individual particles do not have awareness. If the individual particles do not have (God) awareness, then how can a bunch of particles connected together with no awareness have awareness?
Something cannot come from nothing. (more Descartes)Therefore the void is not really nothing as only nothing can come from nothing.

This right here is nothing forming as everything. But it is nothing. It never was anything - it is not a thing.
This moment is not a thing and it is seen by not a thing.
There is never any 'thing' ever formed. It is the endlessly changing and flowing river.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Now you sound more existentialist

God is nothing - this is nothing

Something cannot come from nothing, so while something may be fleeting and impermanent, that is a temporary manifestation (of Brahman) it cannot be nothing.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

God is nothing - this is nothing

Something cannot come from nothing, so while something may be fleeting and impermanent, that is a temporary manifestation (of Brahman) it cannot be nothing.

It is not some 'thing'.
There are no 'things'.
There is this that is here now - take it apart and see what you find.
There is an image - an appearance but is it a 'thing'?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


You are just playing with words now. Semantics has no part in real philosophy.

And sure there are things. If I have no pie I cannot give a piece to you. If I have pie I can give a piece of it. And no Michelle cannot have mine. I had pie tonight. It was there, I ate it. The cherries are right now dissolving in my stomach. The material will be absorbed by my intestinal tract, broken down into usable nutrients and stored in my body as fat which can further be used as energy. So, yes things are something which form can change. That is science. Science and religion can go hand in hand.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

You are just playing with words now. Semantics has no part in real philosophy.

No I am not. I want you to see that there is only this moment of presence. Is presence a thing?
A thing means there is something else - is there any thing other that what is appearing presently - can you name it, can you separate it from any thing else.
What is this?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

You are just playing with words now. Semantics has no part in real philosophy.

This is the human game - playing with words gives the impression there is more than there is so you can live in a pretend world made of things. Words pretend there are things but what is there really?

Timeless being can build a pretend world made of words and it can then dream a dream of separation.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

You are just playing with words now. Semantics has no part in real philosophy.

No I am not. I want you to see that there is only this moment of presence. Is presence a thing?
A thing means there is something else - is there any thing other that what is appearing presently - can you name it, can you separate it from any thing else.
What is this?

God is omnipresent. But ok let's go with that. Is that not what is described in the Hindu philosophy? Our individuality in God means that we exist as beings who can think. My thoughts are different from yours. So although both our origin is in God, the primordial substance, we still experience our individuality. So yes we are different and no we are not. A bit of zen is nice too.
But where I am trying to prove that we exist in God you are trying to prove that we do not.
So again, something cannot come from nothing. The void may appear as nothing, because it is formless. But that is just the difference between the formed and the formless, but like the piece I posted says, God is both in the formed and the formless, the manifest and the unmanifest.