Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

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.

This moment of presence is all there is - it can appear as thoughts. Words divide this presence into a you and other than you. There is no you separate to presence. The idea that you are separate then separates this one image into separate 'things'.
Being a thing among other things is the fear that one experiences - it makes for insecurity because all things come to an end.
One must realize that one is not a thing - that one is what all apparent things appear within.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

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.

We are not in a pretend world, we are in a world which exists and things do exist, although not permanently. You are confusing maya with nonexistence.

I will point to more Descartes

In Meditation Six, “Concerning the Existence of Material Things, and the Real Distinction between Mind and Body,” Descartes attempts to bring an end to the doubting that led him to search for truth. He argues that, “there clearly is in me a passive faculty of sensing, that is, a faculty of receiving and knowing the ideas of sensible things; but I could not use it unless there also existed, either in me or in something else, a certain active faculty of producing or bringing about these ideas.” [xxvii] He further argues that he (a thinking thing) does not produce the ideas, for it “clearly presupposes no act of understanding, and these ideas are produced without my cooperation and often against my will.” [xxviii] He concludes that something corporeal (physical or material) must be causing these ideas and that something is a body, which is distinct from the mind. He argues as before, that since God is perfect and thus could not be a deceiver, then it must be so that material things exist.
In addition, Descartes states that his “nature” (which is given to humans by God) teaches him that he has a body, which senses things such as heat and pain (which is caused by an external physical thing). Further, his nature teaches him that there is a connection between him (his mind) and his body. In order to illustrate this, he uses the analogy of a sailor to a ship. He argues that the mind is not related to the body in the way that the sailor is related to the ship, for when we are injured we sense the pain, while the sailor only sees by sight if the ship is damaged. [xxix] Therefore, there is a union between mind and body.

It is important to note however, that there are major differences between the mind and body. The mind is indivisible, unextended, and thinking, while the body is divisible, extended, and unthinking. Further, as Descartes proved in meditation two, his essence is a thinking thing, which can exist without a body. By showing that that mind is indivisible and able to exist without the body, Descartes attempts to show the immortality of the soul. Even when the body dies, the soul continues to exist.

www.ithaca.edu...

Thanks for playing

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

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.

We are not in a pretend world, we are in a world which exists and things do exist, although not permanently. You are confusing maya with nonexistence.

This apparent appearance that is appearing now is what is existing. It is the play of light (Maya). It is emptiness forming - a constantly flowing and changing river..
'Things' are 'thinks' - thought forms.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

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.

We are not in a pretend world, we are in a world which exists and things do exist, although not permanently. You are confusing maya with nonexistence.

Can you see or hear the 'world' right now? Or is the 'world' a word, that conjures up pictures and ideas about something you have learned about? Is the 'world' ever really experienced? Or will you only ever know what is actually happening? What is happening is what is real but the happening is constantly changing - is the happening a thing?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

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.

We are not in a pretend world, we are in a world which exists and things do exist, although not permanently. You are confusing maya with nonexistence.

This apparent appearance that is appearing now is what is existing. It is the play of light (Maya). It is emptiness forming - a constantly flowing and changing river..
'Things' are 'thinks' - thought forms.

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

Ok I accept that. You are pointing to the flashing forth of the Mind of God in pure thought (from the void of the formless?) Therefore God exists without the form and with the form.
Genesis 1:2

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

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.

We are not in a pretend world, we are in a world which exists and things do exist, although not permanently. You are confusing maya with nonexistence.

This apparent appearance that is appearing now is what is existing. It is the play of light (Maya). It is emptiness forming - a constantly flowing and changing river..
'Things' are 'thinks' - thought forms.

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

Ok I accept that. You are pointing to the flashing forth of the Mind of God in pure thought (from the void of the formless?)

In the beginning there was nothing and God (god must be nothing) said let there be light and there was light and God saw it was good.

This is the beginning - this is nothing seeing light. Have a look right now and see what is seeing, have a look and see if it is a thing that is seeing the appearing light. The scene appearing presently is the light show (Maya) - the show includes all that appears including thought, sensation.

You Know It's Just a Movie!



What we are looking for is what is looking.
St. Francis of Assisi

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Therefore God exists without the form and with the form.

This reality both isn't and is at the same time - always presently.
Nothing is happening - emptiness is forming.

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Please do yourself a favor and start here.

en.wikipedia.org...

However, remember, Wikipedia should only be your first stop, not your destination.

I am a bit familiar with superstring theory, however I have no desire to look too deeply into a thing that cannot truly be comprehended.

good point and i share the same views

reply to post by HarryTZ


explain coherently the origin of the " inteligent " 1st cause

Why is everyone running away from them selves? Is it because they have heard bad things about themselves? Is it because deep down there is the feeling of emptiness?
That emptiness is what you seek.
That emptiness is the intelligent first cause - it is the source.

But the mind does not deal in nothingness - it deals in things. The mind has to have some 'thing' to work with, to figure 'things' out. It is always working toward some 'thing' - it cannot just be.

If you were to take away all the things, if you could remove everything from you what would you be? If there was no thought arising, if there was no colour seen or sound heard, no sensation felt - what would you be?
No one wants to be nothing but if you realized you were what would there be left to lose?

If you realized that everything has to appear in that nothing - the aware space that is - you might realize that nothing can appear to happen without it.

reply to post by HarryTZ

May as why you are ignoring my post on Page 5? Unless you can satisfactorily engage with what is written there, your thread fails. I'm sure you understand this, so your lack of a response, or even an acknowledgement, is puzzling. Or is that precisely why you haven't answered?

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
I agree op. Conciousness is concious of nothing.

This MAN god is alot of nonsense as you pointed out that there are just FORCES in the universe and thats all we really need to understand. Or to look into with great research.

edit on 24-5-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)

To think that we know what exist beyond our perception or understanding is arrogant at the very least!
We have no conceptual understanding of the universe or beyond and the existence of dark matter and
energy have shown that we don't! Whether it's in the scientific or pseudo scientific realm makes no difference
cause the understanding of humanity is minute in comparison to what is! The only truth is that we are ignorant
to the complexities of understanding and will most likely never have the capacity to!

reply to post by HarryTZ


I'm writing the intro to a book that does establish the logical and actual framework for an existential genesis that does NOT require an intelligent first cause, and I'm pretty amped about this thread's existence. Not because I feel compelled to engage in the debate, but because its such a great opportunity to have so many good (and silly) arguments for and against the notion of intelligent first cause packed into one easy to review point of reference.

So, carry on and feed me here. Hopefully, this thread will become a sort of clearinghouse for all major theories concerning this specific dilemma. And maybe I'll finally get inspired to properly intro my own presentation concerning how everything was launched, and from there became the airtight structure that it's become. Surprisingly, it's this non-technical portion of the presentation that's become the most difficult to craft.

Just due to odds and probability there has to be life elsewhere. Dumb to think otherwise

Originally posted by Astyanax
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.

Seems like the best post in this entire thread is being ignored.

The OP's assertions are obliterated and the paper which was posted is seen as the embarrassment to reason it should be. It comes as no surprise that the religious slink away and hide under the rocks they came from.

This is why America is falling so far behind in education.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by charles1952

 

How is that reasonable? Its another example of religious woo woo passed as wisdom.

If god existed outside of the universe then there has to be something outside of the universe to exist in. God would be created in what exists outside of our universe.

And if god can exist without the need of a first cause... then so can the universe.

edit on 24-5-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

God is the space in which all appearances appear - the presence (of the lord).
Without space for apparent things there would be no things appearing.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

The theory of the "great expansion" or "big bang" which brought our universe to its current form is supported by observable evidence.

Should new evidence present itself that can change.

Notice the flexibility of science which is based on observable evidence and religion, by comparison, is not.

edit on 24-5-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

The current form is the image that is seen presently - it is made of light- it is easy to see as it is right here and right now.
But can you see what is seeing the appearance? The appearance appears as thought, sensation, colour, sound and smell - is it possible to see what is seeing the appearance?
What is observing the observable evidence? Can the observer observe the observer?

Forget about the way science observes and forget how religion observes and look directly at what is observing in this very instant.

“What we are looking for is what is looking.” ― St. Francis of Assisi.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

May as why you are ignoring my post on Page 5? Unless you can satisfactorily engage with what is written there, your thread fails. I'm sure you understand this, so your lack of a response, or even an acknowledgement, is puzzling. Or is that precisely why you haven't answered?

Unfortunately, as a human being with basic and unavoidable needs, I sleep. I will be happy to engage with you now, however at 2 in the morning, responding to such a complex response was nary an option for my tired brain.

Originally posted by makaveli3601
Just due to odds and probability there has to be life elsewhere. Dumb to think otherwise

This seems irrelevant.

Originally posted by Astyanax
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?

The creator is infinite in an infinitude of infinitely diverse aspects. It is, literally, the unmanifest potential of infinite intelligence. The universe is not more complex than the creator (the Absolute), it is simply the manifestation of the infinite complexity.

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

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.

Nothing 'happened' before the Big Bang because 'happening' is a phenomena of time and space. So 'before' the Big Bang, there was just the beingness of timeless infinite consciousness. This timelessness and spacelessness is independent from the physical universe, but, paradoxically, it is not separate. Do not try to comprehend this, our minds are not capable of thinking outside the realm of time and space. You may, however, experience it. This we call Nirvana. And you have to be out of your mind.

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.

Except the fact that something as complex as 'dark matter' even exists. You are asking for proof and I tell you, look at the universe! Look at its splendor and its beauty! But that is not and cannot be satisfactory to you, and I do not expect it to be. So I will continue.

Now, you may argue that complexity is a subjective experience, and this may be true. However, when that complexity reaches infinity it is impossible to deny. Like I mentioned in a previous post, while something may seem simple in relation to our everyday lives, you must understand that it is infinitely specific with an infinite number of properties. Even the smallest of subatomic particles must be defined with infinite specificality for it to exist in the midst of a void.

If a certain combination of elements is able to generate a certain effect, it is because the entire system of mathematical relations and proportions that modeled and determined this possibility preceded from eternity its manifestation. [...]

-Voltando à causa primeira (Returning to the first cause)

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.

Except most scientists reject the hypothesis of God.

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.

While it cannot be proved, it is, which now should be obvious, the only logical explanation.

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.

And logic. Don't forget about logic.

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.

Obviously, life must arise out of the combination of elements. In what other way can anything in the physical universe be expected to form?