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 IS IMPOSSIBLE

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by KBadger
 


Computer programs are, in themselves, ideas. They have simply been given a medium by which to express themselves to our senses, so that we may be able to efficiently manipulate them in a manner that is communicable to the rest of the world. in that way, we interact with each other through the manipulation of ideas.

But I agree. Just because there is nothing, doesn't mean there can't be something. And really, when we say "nothing", all we're really saying is that we are unable to discern a break in the pattern of nonexistence. That's not saying much, considering our senses are privy to about 2% of the 0.000000000001% of the universe we are familiar with. Not only are we terribly estranged, we're also terribly blind.

We really shouldn't even have an opinion on where the universe comes from. That's like a 2nd grader having an opinion about the economy. It might be interesting, but there's no reason to take it seriously.
edit on 29-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 29 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Maybe god is just the possibility of something happening, but this possibility is self aware and has the potential to imagine everything, and since it's just potential, it has no limits or beginning or end. Maybe we are nothing and never will be anything other than the potential of self awareness.

I guess it's kinda like the simulation theory coming from the imagination of a self aware possibility with no limits. Kinda makes sense to me. If we are just a possibility acting itself out in the potential awareness of nothing, then there would not have to be any boundaries of time and space.

Way to get my mind reeling, thanks. Your ideas have given me the potential to clear up a couple of conundrums that I have been stumped on almost all my life.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
As I understand it there was a something, it was everything squashed together into 1 something called a singularity.

The elements, time, space, gravity, i.e none of the physical world we know now existed, and consequently none of the physical laws existed.

Something caused the singularity to "explode" for want of a better word, and that created hydrogen and helium which in turn created the elements.

I guess the question if that is correct is where did the singularity come from, and if space etc didn't exist then where was it?

I think it's beyond the human mind to ever truly know or understand.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by TheMagus
 





that the BIG BANG was preceded by the HUGE FART


You have no idea how many hours I've put in to that thought. Why would the process of a Big Bang be any different than the process of creating a fart?


the fart is the result of internal gases escaping due to the Ur-vacuum
ask any astronaut
the big bang would be a result of your atoms dispersing
dont forget all the heat you generate and other than the gases [including any air in your lungs]

not trolling

James Blishe's "the Triumph of Time" ends with a similar scenario



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Quauhtli
 


Potential energy? Just a vast sea of potential energy, waiting to be stimulated into becoming something more?



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


That is an interesting mental excercise. The problem is that we have no definition for "nothing" Current science continuously reveals more and more subatomic elementary particles.
Additionally how would you take Dark Matter into account. Technically this is "nothing"



edit on 29-5-2013 by LastStarfighter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


You can easily fill vacuum with things. It isn't being pushed anywhere.
So.. ?



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I don't know why we have such a diverse group of different races. Maybe each race has a sponsor race from another place we aren't supposed to know about? A social experiment?

But I'm pretty sure what came first; either a chicken or the egg.

We have mixed races now after having the Earth as our nursery. Especially new races now, learning to inter-mingle in peace, because our sponsors can't inter-mingle themselves for some reason or another?



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

A god or gods could still have created our observable universe or a portion of our universe or the universe itself, IF there were other universes or a larger universe outside this one - something exists already and therefore our universe would not be created from nothing. What you're saying is that something has always existed and no matter how far you stretch reality you cannot find a ultimate creator. And if the Big Bang means something from nothing then the Big Bang didn't happen. However, if the Big Bang can come from something then it might have happened.

Even if this whole universe is just a dream created by our mind it's still something because our mind is something. In that case, the universe wouldn't exist on its own, though. But I don't believe our mind can exist on its own without something else because something can't come from nothing. The existence of self implies the existence of other things that it came from.

If there's no ultimate creator then my mind can't be the ultimate creator of reality.
edit on 29-5-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by HarryTZ
 




I want you to respond to it the way YOU want to respond to it.

This is literally a proven scientific fact. All matter descends into nothingness. It's not just empty space I'm talking about either. It is, in fact, the absence of both space AND time. Nonlocal nothingness.


This whole idea sounds like nothing to me.


NOW you're getting it! Nothing is nothing is nothing is nothing. That is everything.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by jiggerj
 


I would think that if you were in "nothing" that you would move more freely because there would be no resistance to your movement. If you were unable to move then "something" would be preventing said movement, therefore "nothing" would in fact be "something". Perhaps there is no such thing as "nothing".


Try really hard to imaging you standing in a place of nothingness. You take a step forward. What fills in the space that you occupied just one step back? It can't be nothing. Nothing can't move, float, or fall. When you say the nothing would in fact be something, you are saying that zero equals one or more. It can't be that way. There's either nothing or there's something.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


0 equals infinity. Everything 'in between' is just an illusion, created by the relative.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
The reason to my mind on why it would be difficult to justify the logicality of an intelligence or awareness always existing would be; That consciousness would have an infinite past, temporally, of awareness, there would always be an event in time before the last event it can remember and it experienced, and it would be able to do this indefinitely.

How can some consciousness have always been aware, but have no beginning, how can it have been aware of an infinite past? The idea of non conscious somethingness always existing is hard enough to grasp (I cant...even though it is the most logical conclusion).

*a personal thought of mine; perhaps the ways of life and nature reflect 'ancient' histories involving these topics discussed. Like how our consciousness has a beginning, and is brought to us by other consciousnesses. Maybe all that can ever be is control and lack of control on infinite varying levels, 'control' almost being synonymous with intelligence.

The universe is controled by laws, but it is so vast and powerful and chaotic, that it also embodies lack of control, or as many would view as a sign of non intelligence, and then this lawful system and chaotic system as one, can create something like life, and something like humans.

Who possess a mighty amount of control for their stature. So the idea of a God would imply, an awareness that was indowed by (itself? nature? reality? awareness before it? absoluteness?) something giving it existence, and would God be a dictator? would God feel fortunate for its privilege of being God? Would God be just like any personality we know if it were endowed with primary existence and an eternal past?

Would this God be all knowing? (I dont think thats possible, to be all knowing, ever, because infinity does not end)... Would there be such thing as right and wrong absolutely, or what ever God said would be right and wrong? What would it do and why? would it have restrictions (laws of physics or reality holding it back?... I think restrictions or laws, rules, are necessary for any order, organization or running system. What materials would God use, how would he choose how much to use, and for how long? Would those decisions be determined by Gods limits and circumstances?
edit on 29-5-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 





What you're saying is that something has always existed and no matter how far you stretch reality you cannot find a ultimate creator.


Not really. I'm saying we could never go back to a time where there was nothing. I'm proposing that the stuff to make the universe had to be there by default. If not nothing, then something. Did this something create a god? Who knows, but in my unscientific, unreligious opinion I don't think so.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by jiggerj
 

A god or gods could still have created our observable universe or a portion of our universe or the universe itself, IF there were other universes or a larger universe outside this one - something exists already and therefore our universe would not be created from nothing. What you're saying is that something has always existed and no matter how far you stretch reality you cannot find a ultimate creator. And if the Big Bang means something from nothing then the Big Bang didn't happen. However, if the Big Bang can come from something then it might have happened.

Even if this whole universe is just a dream created by our mind it's still something because our mind is something. In that case, the universe wouldn't exist on its own, though. But I don't believe our mind can exist on its own without something else because something can't come from nothing. The existence of self implies the existence of other things that it came from.

If there's no ultimate creator then my mind can't be the ultimate creator of reality.
edit on 29-5-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)


That's a lot to think about.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
The reason to my mind on why it would be difficult to justify the logicality of an intelligence or awareness always existing would be; That consciousness would have an infinite past, temporally, of awareness, there would always be an event in time before the last event it can remember and it experienced, and it would be able to do this indefinitely.
All of eternity is contained in a single, infinite moment. There is no such thing as time, just the beingness of the present (the only moment). There is no 'passage' of 'time' in the Absolute. There is nothing to 'remember' in an eternal moment. All 'things' are 'happening' Right Now.


How can some consciousness have always been aware, but have no beginning, how can it have been aware of an infinite past? The idea of non conscious somethingness always existing is hard enough to grasp (I cant...even though it is the most logical conclusion).
Your mind will never be able to understand the Absolute. It is a process of the relative, built specifically not to be able comprehend anything transcendent. You may, however, experience the Absolute as who and what you are, always 'were' and always 'will be'.


*a personal thought of mine; perhaps the ways of life and nature reflect 'ancient' histories involving these topics discussed. Like how our consciousness has a beginning, and is brought to us by other consciousnesses. Maybe all that can ever be is control and lack of control on infinite varying levels, 'control' almost being synonymous with intelligence.
There is only one consciousness. You are it. You are the Absolute experiencing itself as itself. There is naught but You.


The universe is controled by laws, but it is so vast and powerful and chaotic, that it also embodies lack of control, or as many would view as a sign of non intelligence, and then this lawful system and chaotic system as one, can create something like life, and something like humans.
And these laws just popped out of nowhere? Or, they came from some dumb and inanimate entity? That simply does not make sense.


Who possess a mighty amount of control for their stature. So the idea of a God would imply, an awareness that was indowed by (itself? nature? reality? awareness before it? absoluteness?) something giving it existence, and would God be a dictator? would God feel fortunate for its privilege of being God? Would God be just like any personality we know if it were endowed with primary existence and an eternal past?
The awareness simply is. There was no 'endowement', it has always just been. You're trying to assess the Absolute as if it were governed by the laws of the relative. It is not, and in fact, is the source of these laws.

The Absolute does not feel fortunate because there is literally nothing else it could be. It was not 'allowed', by some higher force, to be the Absolute. The Absolute is all higher forces. It is literally boundless in every of the infinite ways possible, and then some.


Would this God be all knowing? (I dont think thats possible, to be all knowing, ever, because infinity does not end)...
So the Absolute is limited to the finite? No, I think your question answers itself.

Would there be such thing as right and wrong absolutely, or what ever God said would be right and wrong?
Morals are subjective. The Absolute is objective.

What would it do and why?
There is no doing and there is no 'why'. There is just being, for no reason. Does God have a purpose?

would it have restrictions (laws of physics or reality holding it back?... I think restrictions or laws, rules, are necessary for any order, organization or running system.
I think you can answer this for yourself now.

What materials would God use, how would he choose how much to use, and for how long?
What?

Would those decisions be determined by Gods limits and circumstances?
What?



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by jiggerj
 


0 equals infinity. Everything 'in between' is just an illusion, created by the relative.


I would argue that zero is zero, and ONE equals infinity. If the earth is one planet, then everything contained in it and on it are parts of that one. One universe makes everything in it a part of that one universe. One infinity would contain EVERYTHING.
edit on 5/29/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


But if it is infinite, the fact that there is 'only one' is not relevant. It is everything that every was and ever could be.

Also, you'd equate nothingness with 0, right? And that nothingness is not limited. Therefore, it is infinite.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

If there was ever a time of nothingness, there would still be nothing because this state wouldn't have the qualities necessary to move aside to allow the universe to fill it in.


The problem I see here is you are trying to relate our realities perception of what is nothing and what is there to alternate realities which may have completely different rules to ours.

I find this hard to explain so I am going to give a little example...

Dreams.. we have all had a dream where it feels so real, you wake up wondering if it was real and take a moment for your brain to recognize this reality. Now if there is a creator that is above our level of reality, in this example he would be the dreamer.
Now in the dream reality to start with there was nothing, then you dream things in to existence, to those outside the dream realm something already existed to start this, but within the dream a whole world is created from nothing.
Now how many levels of dreams we are in nobody knows, and nobody can know because we can only measure what we see within the dream. What we do know is we exist, and therefore we must have came from something, and therefore something must have always existed before everything else because as you point out something can not come from nothing, but my point is, it can be perceived to.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


The problem with your logic is that by your definition movement in a vacuum would be impossible.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join