Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

I have on his behalf. Check the info, and then check it again.

I'm going to have to ask you to post a link to the post you have made disputing my analysis of his illogical statements, because I have looked at your posts in this thread, and I am not seeing it.

Thank you.

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by HarryTZ
Which still doesn't explain where said multiverse arose from and how universes even have the ability to just form for no reason with extremely precise physical laws -- be them life-supporting or not.

You are the one claiming to have the explanation, Harry. Your claim is that it is an Intelligent Creator. I am perfectly comfortable saying that I don't know, but if you are going to tell me what the truth of it is, you better be able to back it up.

You haven't.

I'm deducing logically that an Intelligence is most likely the cause of the universe.

The proof is all around you. See it in everything, Michael.

But you haven't done that.. at all. Do you even know what deductive reasoning entails?

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

Well my argument is to point to the effect from an initial cause demonstrating intelligent design directed in favor of life as we know it including ourselves, which would have even required, at the appropriate time, an ELE meteor impact to wipe out the dinos to create the ecological sphere within which mankind would evolve.

The conclusion is that nothing is purely random, but has come about by anticipation from a first/last cause, but talk about being ahead of the curve..!

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Yes -- and ruling out other possibilities as illogical is part of it.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


1 - you utterly missrepresent cause / effect - there is no evidence that the moon / earth / sun is " fine tuned for life " , rather evidence shows that life has adapted to survive in the moon / earth / sun environment

your claim is akin to asserting that the arctic ocean is ice bound to suit polar bears

2 - the full moon is NOT " perfect reflection " - where do you get this nonsence from ?

3 - your pretty picture are a lie - look at the last one you posted - the square and circle dont match - its a fabrication

reply to post by HarryTZ


why does that not surprise me , you claim to be " logical " - but dont know the rules and falacies of formal logic

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Why are you asking me why it doesn't surprise you? For someone who claims to know about logic, you sure are asking pretty illogical questions

reply to post by HarryTZ


please cite these alledged " illogical questions " i am supposed to have posted

PS - my jab at you was a rhetorical question - do you know what that means ?

Originally posted by squiz

Decades of confounding experiments have physicists considering a startling possibility: The universe might not make sense.
...
However, in order for the Higgs boson to make sense with the mass (or equivalent energy) it was determined to have, the LHC needed to find a swarm of other particles, too. None turned up.
...
With the discovery of only one particle, the LHC experiments deepened a profound problem in physics that had been brewing for decades. Modern equations seem to capture reality with breathtaking accuracy, correctly predicting the values of many constants of nature and the existence of particles like the Higgs. Yet a few constants — including the mass of the Higgs boson — are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations.
...
The LHC will resume smashing protons in 2015 in a last-ditch search for answers. But in papers, talks and interviews, Arkani-Hamed and many other top physicists are already confronting the possibility that the universe might be unnatural.
...
Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam.
...
The energy built into the vacuum of space (known as vacuum energy, dark energy or the cosmological constant) is a baffling trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times smaller than what is calculated to be its natural, albeit self-destructive, value. No theory exists about what could naturally fix this gargantuan disparity. But it’s clear that the cosmological constant has to be enormously fine-tuned to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance.
...
Now, physicists say, the unnaturalness of the Higgs makes the unnaturalness of the cosmological constant more significant.

www.simonsfoundation.org...

Notice the escape clause to extend the probabilty argument?

"then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky?"

Why else indeed, never mind that big fat elephant in the room.

So let me get this straight..

When they finally squeeze out the illusive Higgs Boson aka The God Particle, in the hope of upholding the Standard Model of Physics, while it does that, nevertheless it points to God of all things as a fine-tuner from an initial cause, so the scientists immediately posit the notion, or the theory, that there must be an infinite number of failed universes wherein ours just happens to be the one with life as we know it, or we wouldn't be here to observe it in the first place. An "escape clause" as you call it. It's pretty funny when you really think about it..

And if it were so, amid all that failure, time and time again in eternity, why would "it" be so persistent, as if willing to succeed at all cost, even at the cost of an infinite amount of failed starts, that's quite the urge to be creative if you ask me, especially when framed in an eternity which is a rather long time to say the least to eventually succeed where every other universe failed

That's hilarious, you see, because even by their account it STILL points to God! And here we are joining the circle. Is that not co-creative and participatory? Is it therefore not meaningful and significant?

Are they saying that this universe is absurd and meaningless because it's so perfectly ordered and fine tuned.. (huh?) or, if meaningful, then at best only when framed relative to an infinite ocean of absurdities and impossibilities, all to avoid the obvious elephant in the room, a superintelligent designer.


Those scientists are a RIOT!

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

please cite these alledged " illogical questions " i am supposed to have posted

PS - my jab at you was a rhetorical question - do you know what that means ?

This:

why does that not surprise me

I'm obviously not a mindreader, ignorant_ape san.

The prospect of and inquiry into the whole idea of intelligent design, in a modern context, is the most intriguing, and imperative and urgent of questions facing mankind, but because many in the scientific community are of an atheist orientation, they are willing to go rather far afield we might say to AVOID even the mere implication of such a thing! That's both very funny but also very sad too, because such an inquiry and investigation could very well help us to rediscover our true place in the cosmos, even as children of a loving and very creative and inventive and generousGod who it obviously pleased to share his kingdom.

Life, as an inheritance prepared by anticipation, from the very beginning of time and space - what other conclusion can they draw than that it was intended by design with intelligence? And then when we look around and consider our own inclusion within the context and framework of modern quantum theory ("to be is to be perceived"), how can we help but to draw a conclusion not entirely dissimilar to that of the ancient wisdom teachings of the ages?

How absurd and ridiculous are we prepared to get to avoid the implications of the very thing we're inquiring into, I wonder, it ought to be interesting to see..

Maybe good scientists will have to become not only metaphyicians, but also good comedians, if only to try to maintain their poise, if not their sanity. Time will tell.

Regards,

NAM

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Surely that post invites a reply from ignorant_ape (that's not what we are btw).

reply to post by NewAgeMan


it has been replied to , scroll up

reply to post by HarryTZ


as i have already explained - it was a rhetorical question - you might want to google that

so i this an admission that you cannot actualy find anything illiogical in my replies to this thread ?

PS - your ignorance doesnt make a statemet illogical

and BTW - when are you actually going to logically explain the orignis of your alledged god ?

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Before the universe there was no time
God was before the universe
Therefore, god was before time
If something is before time it is timeless
If something is timeless is does not and can not have a beginning or an end
Therefore, god did not begin
If god did not begin that mean it has no origin

Happy?

I think the issue is that people believe that consciousness has to be conscious of something, or else it is not conscious. This is a misconception. Consciousness does not have to have a subject for it to exist. 

It is now easy to understand that the term 'consciousness' is not an abstraction of some phenomena, but a term used to describe the infinite and unmanifest potential in which all phenomena can exist.

So in other words you want the Creator of the Heavens and Earth who is responsible for the design of everything and who originated the principles and laws which operates this everything to be just an "infinite and unmanifest potential". In order to do this, you bend and distort the very definition of the word consciousness

1 [mass noun] the state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings:
she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later
2 a person’s awareness or perception of something:
her acute consciousness of Luke’s presence
the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world:
oxforddictionaries.com...

In your redefined word, what you do is remove the adjectives "aware, perceptive, receptive". Forgive me, but it is evident that one must be all of those things to think, design and implement all of those principles and governing laws which you call forces. In which case, what you are doing is stated in Romans 1 - purposely denying the evidence of creation, and thus the Creator, all around us. And man does this so that he can deny the GLORY of God and His Existence. In fact, it is accepting a divine intelligence yet denying His power, His Thought and His awareness. You can see that everything in our world is intrinsically linked, you can see that things operate as designed, you can see the balances that exist in every bio system and you can see how everything has been designed to have purpose. Why is it that men can behold a piece of machinery or work of art and see the creator behind those pieces, yet when it comes to everything in this world and universe we tend to want to do the exact opposite? 

Monism is a philosophical position which argues that the variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance.[1] The wide definition states that all existing things go back to a source which is distinct from them.[2] The common, restricted definition implies also a unity of substance and essence.

Religious monists can be Pandeists[citation needed], Pantheists, or Panentheists.[citation needed]..

There are monist pantheists and panentheists in:

Zoroastrianism
Hinduism (particularly in Advaita and Vishistadvaita)
Judaism (monistic panentheism is especially found in Kabbalah and Hasidic philosophy[citation needed])
Islam (among the Sufis, especially the Bektashi)
Pantheism

Main article: Pantheism
Pantheism is the belief that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God,[25] or that the universe (or nature) is identical with divinity.[26] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal or anthropomorphic god, but believe that interpretations of the term differ.en.m.wikipedia.org...

As pantheism and monism is generally "god is in all, all is god", what you are doing is simply trying to pass off your religion of monism/pantheism as 'consciousness' when you call your god "the infinite and unmanifest potential in which all phenomena can exist". There is no difference, except that you appeal to science as evidence. Your god is an impersonal, unaware, unperceptive and unresponsive nothing - your god is the very "substance" of monism and pantheism. Your god might as well be a rock or lump of clay. Your god therefore accepts everything that you do, your god has no expectations or morality, your god deserves no glory and your god could never be Judge as your god is not CONSCIOUS.

Unfortunately, this is delusional. Go out and be absolutely horrible to somebody for absolutely no reason and then come back here and tell me that your conscience does not bear down on you for your actions. I've just proved to you that your unaware, impersonal, unthinking, unperceptive and unaware 'god' is none of those things. The Bible is about the MIND and man, and the oppression of it - and it's stubbornness and refusal to turn and acknowledge and give GLORY to the Author of it all. The Author of Life. Who thinks, who is aware, who is responsive...whose very Word was made flesh. And who implores man to be reconciled to Him and to be reborn as His new Creation - planned from the beginning.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by ignorant_ape

 

Before the universe there was no time
God was before the universe
Therefore, god was before time
If something is before time it is timeless
If something is timeless is does not and can not have a beginning or an end
Therefore, god did not begin
If god did not begin that mean it has no origin

Happy?

This is an example of the logical fallacy, petitio principii, or Begging the Question.
en.wikipedia.org...

First, you use this logical fallacy to state that there was is a "before the Universe" without proving that it is the case. You are assuming the point without proof.

Secondly, you use this logical fallacy to state that God was before the Universe without proving that it is the case. You are assuming this point without proof.

The rest builds off of these and other logical fallacies.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


This right here is timeless being - it is always the present. Ideas, words arise presently and are known presently. This is the presence of the lord and every happening happens right here and right now in reality.
There is no time - only the appearance is changing.

No beginning, no end, just this. This appears different constantly.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

This right here is timeless being - it is always the present. Ideas, words arise presently and are known presently. This is the presence of the lord and every happening happens right here and right now in reality.
There is no time - only the appearance is changing.

No beginning, no end, just this. This appears different constantly.

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

Simplified, this doesn't actually answer the question, and is merely just a statement of belief.

1. "The Present" is Timeless being.
2. "Timeless being" is the Presence of The Lord.
3. There is no Time - only the Present.

This is another example of Begging the Question.