Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

If you see it another way, I would love a clearer picture of what you are saying.

Your defense is nonsensical.
I don't think I could make it any clearer, but let me use your own words.

I was taking the statements as-is without including them into the larger framework.

Cherry picking, no ifs or buts about it.

And then by your own admission....

Had I merely cherry picked this idea out of the general structure I would agree with you that it wasn't Begging the Question. I -will- agree that it was also a strawman.

Thank you. No contradiction there.

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

If you see it another way, I would love a clearer picture of what you are saying.

Your defense is nonsensical.
I don't think I could make it any clearer, but let me use your own words.

I was taking the statements as-is without including them into the larger framework.

Cherry picking, no ifs or buts about it.

And then by your own admission....

Had I merely cherry picked this idea out of the general structure I would agree with you that it wasn't Begging the Question. I -will- agree that it was also a strawman.

Thank you. No contradiction there.

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

So in other words, you've got nothin, right, considering you are actually cherry picking.

Tell me I'm nonsensical if you must, but you aren't contradicting it when the logic is laid out for you to follow and refute then you aren't actually adding anything to the conversation.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Yet another strawman. Your quotes are not taken out of context. I could post them in thier entirety and nothing would be different.

With all due respect Michael you have been very bold in stating what is logical and what is not as well as throwing up the logical fallacies without addressing the issues. While making a few doozies of your own. I think you should take a look in the mirror.

If I may take a page from your book, I have already proven my point. Actually you did it for me.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Yet another strawman. Your quotes are not taken out of context. I could post them in thier entirety and nothing would be different.

So says you, simply because you can type the letters in the word strawman. I guess that's all it takes to shoot down logic. Simply type the word strawman.

With all due respect Michael you have been very bold in stating what is logical and what is not as well as throwing up the logical fallacies without addressing the issues. While making a few doozies of your own. I think you should take a look in the mirror.

If I may take a page from your book, I have already proven my point. Actually you did it for me.

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

And with all due respect to you, mate, you continue to claim that I have made logical fallacies, yet you distract from the issues by grasping at what certainly amounts to semantics, whether a fallacy was begging the question or circular reasoning.

I cannot help your comprehension on what Begging the Question means, as I have tried, and failed, and you do not wish to offer any back up other than to take a few cherry picked quotes and lean back in your chair in triumph.

How about next time you take a page out of my book and defend your statements.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Seems you don't like the taste of your own medicine. I guess you don't see the irony in your last post. You only continue to contradict yourself. The very same statements could apply to every one of your posts.

BTW...

by grasping at what certainly amounts to semantics, whether a fallacy was begging the question or circular reasoning.

Seems you don't know what it means and are using obfuscation to deny your own fallacious arguments, as in misuse of semantics.

Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning
Explanation

An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.

Not applicable when the question assumes the existance of the premise. Just keep digging that hole.

reply to post by squiz


I am going to end this on my end by suggesting that you are engaging in ad nauseum tactics. You have been asked repeatedly to expand on your accusations and merely continue to layer more increasingly idiotic and embarrassing attempts to step the conversation away from the initial point.

If you would like to continue a dialog with me on how my logic is flawed, citing examples and spelling it out in plain English as I have done, by all means, post it here or send me a u2u, because until then, I am going to continue to consider you someone not having a good faith conversation.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee



Likewise, lets see... hypocrisy, denial, and adhom to boot.
My plain english analysis of your flawed logic is on page 17 and 18.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
reply to post by squiz

 

I am going to end this on my end by suggesting that you are engaging in ad nauseum tactics. You have been asked repeatedly to expand on your accusations and merely continue to layer more increasingly idiotic and embarrassing attempts to step the conversation away from the initial point.

Embarrassing? I thought he was doin' a pretty good job!

If you would like to continue a dialog with me on how my logic is flawed, citing examples and spelling it out in plain English as I have done, by all means, post it here or send me a u2u, because until then, I am going to continue to consider you someone not having a good faith conversation.

Which is all that you have been doing this entire thread. You insist on showing me how my logic is flawed, yet you have no logic to contribute of your own. Squiz is just showing you what that's like.

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
reply to post by squiz

 

I am going to end this on my end by suggesting that you are engaging in ad nauseum tactics. You have been asked repeatedly to expand on your accusations and merely continue to layer more increasingly idiotic and embarrassing attempts to step the conversation away from the initial point.

Embarrassing? I thought he was doin' a pretty good job!

If you would like to continue a dialog with me on how my logic is flawed, citing examples and spelling it out in plain English as I have done, by all means, post it here or send me a u2u, because until then, I am going to continue to consider you someone not having a good faith conversation.

Which is all that you have been doing this entire thread. You insist on showing me how my logic is flawed, yet you have no logic to contribute of your own. Squiz is just showing you what that's like.

The logic comes from pointing out how your logic is incorrect, not merely saying it is illogical. As I have done, and you have decided to ignore. Repeatedly.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

Might I make a suggestion?

This is an important question and I can understand why it should be discussed, but it seems to have gotten off-track. Instead of both sides saying "My logic is good, your's is bad," would you consider starting over in a sense?

Provide your basic premise, then discuss and argue that. Follow it with a second premise, if neccesary. When you have an agreed base to work from, build on it carefully, step by step, so that areas of disagreement can be easily spotted and dealt with.

That would be more enlightening for observers such as I.

Thanks for considering it.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


You want me to try to prove, without a doubt, that god is there? Okay, but only after you try to prove he isn't.

See the problem? You're asking me to prove something which, due to the very nature of the universe, cannot be proved. So, what I have done instead was to provide logical conclusions which point to the existence of a creator, which is the next best thing.

Here, I'm gonna copy, into my next post, every other piece of logic that I have described, and I will be expecting you to attempt to point out the fallacies (or better yet, you could actually contribute).

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Might I make a suggestion?

This is an important question and I can understand why it should be discussed, but it seems to have gotten off-track. Instead of both sides saying "My logic is good, your's is bad," would you consider starting over in a sense?

Provide your basic premise, then discuss and argue that. Follow it with a second premise, if neccesary. When you have an agreed base to work from, build on it carefully, step by step, so that areas of disagreement can be easily spotted and dealt with.

That would be more enlightening for observers such as I.

Thanks for considering it.

That's the thing.

If you look at the thread, I have done just that. I have waited for a basic premise to be laid out, countered it, only to be ignored by Harry. Then I had another attack my premise, tell me it was cherry picking and illogical, I have written a follow up, and had it dismissed as nonsensical without any type of further commentary other than to continue to be told I am illogical and nonsensical by squiz.

I have decided, rightly or wrongly, that squiz is giving an ad nausem tactic, which is to continue arguing until the topic has exhausted interest, as opposed to arguing to the reasonable resolution of the logical worth of a statement. I base this on not only the replies he gave before I posted that I felt he was resorting to ad nausem, but also the post he made after. In my opinion, if he were interested in the resolution of the scenario, he would have at the -very least- linked to the posts he thinks counters my thoughts.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

You want me to try to prove, without a doubt, that god is there? Okay, but only after you try to prove he isn't.

See the problem? You're asking me to prove something which, due to the very nature of the universe, cannot be proved. So, what I have done instead was to provide logical conclusions which point to the existence of a creator, which is the next best thing.

Here, I'm gonna copy, into my next post, every other piece of logic that I have described, and I will be expecting you to attempt to point out the fallacies (or better yet, you could actually contribute).

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

This post actually ends the thread for me.

In your thread title and OP you have maintained that Intelligent First Cause must exist. Now you are claiming that you cannot prove it due to the nature of the Universe. If you cannot prove God exists, your entire first point, which was that you can prove God must exist, is in error.

I'm not interested in proving God isn't here. Not my fight. My fight would be equally is incredulous to anyone trying to prove logically that God -doesn't- exist.

It is unknowable.

A few of my (and others, if they were of any relevance) posts and arguments...

||PART ONE||

1. HarryTZ: There was a gentleman (I assume he was male) that retorted, in a reply to the first section of the OP:

   
   Not if this universe is one of the longer-lasting failures in an infinite series of failures. Something of an inconstant multiverse where every universe is randomly composed of a randomized assortment of principles and particles. All will likely be failures, some will last longer than others. This universe appears to have been a success because we have nothing to compare it to in our relative ignorance. Your theory requires that we possess a complete knowledge of everything that exists, has ever existed, and ever will exist. [...]

   to which I said,

   
   But there still has to be some form of intelligence in order for 'principles' and 'particles' to even hold any sort of existence. They have to be based on something. Your claim of an inconsistent multiverse does not conflict with my theory as much as you think it does. It simply states that 'God' or first cause is not as intelligent as I theorized. Even if we are just an 'apparent success' in an infinite line of failures, the fact that [said multiverse exists in a way that] such a success has even the tiniest probability of occurring shows that there must be some sort of intelligence. Not to mention the fact that the possibility of any universe, [be it] success or failure, has ground and cause to exist in the first place.

   
   
   ~~~~
   
   
2. charles1952: I think this may help with the complexity argument. It's from the Craig-Curley debate on the existence of God.
   
   

   
   God makes sense of the complex order in the universe. During the last 30 years, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a delicate and complex balance of initial conditions simply given in the Big Bang itself. We now know that life–prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than any life–permitting universe like ours. How much more probable?
   
   12. Well, the answer is that the chances that the universe should be life–permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re–collapsed into a hot fireball.[5] P.C.W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least.[6] [He also] estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10 raised to the 100th power would have prevented a life–permitting universe.[7] There are around 50 such constants and quantities present in the Big Bang which must be fine–tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. And it's not just each quantity which must be finely tuned; their ratios to each other must also be exquisitely finely tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.
   
   13. There is no physical reason why these constants and quantities should posses the values they do. The one–time agnostic physicist P.C. W. Davies comments, "Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact."[8] Similarly, Fred Hoyle remarks, "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super–intellect has monkeyed with physics."[9] Robert Jastrow, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, calls this the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science.[10]

   
   
   www.leaderu.com...
   
   This seems to be overwhelmingly persuasive evidence. I have read that scientists consider impossibility to be reached when odds against reach 10 to the fiftieth power. The numbers used here indicate impossibility raised to impossible heights.
   
   An intelligent designer seems the only reasonable solution suggested.
   
   ~~~~
   
   ||END PART ONE||

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


It still must exist. We just can't prove it empirically.
Anyways... on with PART TWO...

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


I would hope that the gravity of what you just said sinks into the heads of those who have done nothing on this thread but act like circus clowns.

the common tactic of spewing out all sorts of unfounded presuppositions and then claiming some sort of persecution when pressed for evidence.

||PART TWO||

1. charles1952: The question of "Who made God?' pops up often enough. I found a reasonable argument from David Anderson. Here's what he suggests:

   
   Both science and the Bible agree that time began to exist when the universe began to exist (the Bible made this statement thousands of years ago, science just discovered this fact about a hundred years ago). Since time began to exist when the universe began to exist, then whatever force caused the universe to exist, be it God or something else, is, by definition, a timeless force. That is, it's a force that is not bound by the constraints of time that matter within the physical universe is bound by. Therefore, this force would not likely be a force that has a beginning or an end. A force that has no beginning or end would not have a creator. Therefore, if God created the universe, God would not have a creator.

   kingdavid8.com...
   
   ~~~~
   
   
2. NewAgeMan: You spoke in the OP of effects from initial causes, well this one is the big Cahoona in terms of the manifestation of the entire cosmological evolutionary process in time and cosmic history.
   
   To gather in the data, you'll need to read the book "Who Built the Moon", which, although the author's final conclusion isn't imo, reasonable, nevertheless spells it all out very well.
   
   Check this for starters.
   
   Strange Moon Facts.
   
   Take a look at this video
   
   
   
   
   And also looks into how the geometrical relationship of the moon to the earth "squares the circle" and you'll find the true nature of the Great Pyramid too (Google it).
   
   
   
   
   as flower of life vesica pisces
   
   
   
   
   
   I've concluded that the accretion disk of the solar system and by extension the galaxy must have been "seeded" with strange objects, once of which became our moon which is actually the cornerstone of our entire solar system, like the "Rosetta Stone of the Solar System" (Robert Jastrow
   First Chairman, NASA Lunar Exploration Committee).
   
   If interested here's where I started laying out the idea in a thread contest for a truly original or unique philosophical idea, for which my idea took, yes, the top prize!
   
   Moon-seed by Intelligent Design
   
    
   
   The information is conveyed in that post and subsequent ones on that page and the next, from the thread Contest with prize by me..
   
   Hope that helps get you, and others, started down this line of inquiry, which terminates in an absolutely astounding and astonishing discovery and realization.
   
   Here's a link to the free download location for the book Who Built the Moon. Enjoy!
   
   Regards,
   
   NAM
   
   ~~~~
   
   
3. arpgme:

   
   Originally posted by HarryTZ
   Assuming that the Big Bang theory is correct (as opposed to some other theory, such as the currently rejected Steady State theory which claimed that the universe did not have a beginning), you must acknowledge that the universe had a cause.

   
   
   The second law of thermodynamics says energy can NOT be CREATED or DESTROYED.
   
   So the energy used to cause the big bang was not created - it was always there.
   
   

   
   Originally posted by HarryTZ
   Now, since time and space did not exist until after the Big Bang, God must be both beyond time and space. There could not have been a 'time before' God, because both the concepts of 'time' and 'before' did not exist. This means that it was causeless, that it always existed and always will.

   
   
   I agree with you here.
   
   Time is an idea (existence).
   Space is an idea (existence).
   
   Existence itself is ETERNAL because energy cannot be created or destroyed, so the idea of "time" (cause/effect - life/death) is an illusion within existence.
   
   

   
   Originally posted by HarryTZ
   But before the universe, what was there for God to be conscious of? Nothing. But God was obviously conscious.

   
   
   You make it sound like "God" is something "Separate".
   
   We've already determined anything existent is a part of existence and existence is ONE (energy)...
   
   So, there is existence (ALL, ENERGY / MATTER) and there is non-existence (which does not exist!).
   
   So which one is "God"?
   
   If God is "existence" then there is no need to make it sound like there is "two" (God and others) because anything that can exist is ONE (connected to 'being' / 'existence' / 'to be' / 'I AM') and "to exist" is one thing exactly the same within all (living and non-living).
   
   ~~~~
   
   ||END PART TWO||

||PART THREE||

1. HarryTZ: "God" or consciousness is infinite by its very nature. The universe is not and cannot be an 'addition' to that which is already all of existence. Also, while it may appear that the opposite of existence is non-existence, since 'non-existence' does not exist, it cannot be the 'opposite' of anything. Therefore, it is easy to see that, since non-existence is a condition which does not exist, existence ("God", consciousness) has always existed, even 'before' the creation of the universe. It is also easy to see the "God" or consciousness is infinitely unlimited in an infinite number of aspects.

   
   Simply observe how we came in to being - simple elements became more complex and after a long time consciousness was formed - this basic rule should apply to all things that are conscious. Even this so called "God" which may have existed prior to the BigBang cannot say, I created the universe, Worship me etc.. Fundamentally, there is no difference between consciousness in any medium be it pre bigbang or post bigbang, and no consciousness can claim that it should be worshiped or that it created the universe.

   Even the simplest of elements are utterly complex in that they are specific and contain precise mathematical properties that absolutely must have been 'planned out' or predetermined. You cannot just have a particle without first defining an infinite number of infinitely complex properties that make that particle, a particle.
   
   ~~~~
   
   
2. HarryTZ: The chair you are sitting in may seem relatively simple to your normal, everyday human experience, however an infinite number of infinitely complex properties must be applying to it in order for it to exist as infinitely specificly as it does. It could be any infinite number of colors, however somehow it is the color it is, and not one of those other possibilities. It could be somewhere else -- its location is infinitely specific -- but it somehow is here, of all places. Everything is infinitely unlikely yet somehow it exists the way it does anyway.
   
   Now, you could argue that everything has to exist in some way, but the fact that each infinitely specific possibility exists out of seemingly infinitely unspecific space, cannot be explained without acknowledging some sort of 'plan'.
   
   I say that the properties are infinitely complex because absolute nothingness, which lacks literally any property and cannot be defined, somehow gave rise to a property. So, no matter how simple something may seem, it cannot be, logically.
   
   ~~~~
   
   
3. HarryTZ:

   
   Originally posted by WorShip
   reply to post by HarryTZ
   

    

   
   
   Well, reality seems to disagree with your statement that awareness is not the result of any components. is a single particle aware? are there no processes by which thought occurs?
   

   
   
   Actually, yes, a single particle is aware. It is, in fact, made of pure awareness (nothingness). Also thoughts are created in the mind, they are not fundamentally part of consciousness.
   
   Have you heard of the double-slit experiment? I am not going to go into detail, but basically what it proved is that when a photon was being observed, it would behave like a particle, and if it was not, it would behave like a wave. While the observer did not necessarily have to be a live human (they used measuring instruments), what it doesn't explain is how the photon 'knew' whether or not it was being watched. Fundamentally, consciousness solves this problem.
   
   In a variation of this experiment, the time it took for the 'information' to be transferred from the observer to the photon, 'alerting' it that it was being watched, was measured. The scientists found that said information was travelling at at least 10,000 times the speed of light in order for it to have gotten to the photon in the amount of time it did. Scientists still do not understand how this is possible. Fundamentally, consciousness solves this problem.
   
   ~~~~
   
   HarryTZ [from another thread]: When (and I understand that that is an inaccurate word, but bear with me here) the Absolute created the relative, it literally did so from absolute scratch. The universe isn't 'based' on anything, it is baseless. Every aspect of the universe, therefore, must have infinite complexity. Every property in the universe must have more detailed properties defining that one, even more detailed properties defining those, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum. At the end of this infinitely long chain of complex and even more complex properties, is the pure consciousness of nothingness. The universe, therefore, is literally made of nothing. That is why it is said, that "reality is an illusion".
   

~~~~

||END PART THREE||

I will continue on with PART FOUR soon. Stay tuned.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

Dear MichaelPMaccabee,

I'm sorry to hear that you're done with the thread. Would it be easier to stick around if the topic were: "Overwhelming (or powerful) arguments for why there was anintelligent first cause?" It seems that in Part 1 and Part 2, just above this, HarryTZ lays out a pretty fair case for his side. The scientists seem to be saying that the Universe just couldn't be random chance. And if it wasn't, then it would seem there was a non-random cause, a systematic cause.

Surely, there can be some fruitful discussion on this point, even if that is all that is considered.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. It seems events have overtaken me. Make that Parts 1-4 (And maybe more after that.) It seems fair to me to say that he has put some serious effort into presenting arguments that are worth rebuttal (if possible). - C -