Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

reply to post by Wertdagf

Dear Wertdagf,

I was hoping that such a succinct post would be easy for me to understand and accept. Unforunately . . .

substituting something with origins far more complex then the thing it created, for which there is no evidence, isn't a solution to the problem.

It seems that you're making the assertion that the Intelligent Designer, had complex origins, or even origins at all. Then, by rejecting the assertion that no one seems to be making, aren't you offering a "strawman" argument?

This entire thread contains evidence for an intelligent first cause. You may not find it sufficient, or convincing, but to deny the existence of any evidence is, simply, a false statement.

Finally,

This thread is like an application for the job to be "logical fallacy king".

is not only a conclusion unsupported by your premises, but it appears to be a veiled ad hominem. If it is indeed an application for the position you described, it appears that he will be beat out by a candidate far more qualified for the job.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

If you existed in an intelligently designed universe, how would you know? What could this universe have that would let you know it was designed intelligently?

Trademark or patent information short of that its a matter of faith.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

substituting something with origins far more complex then the thing it created, for which there is no evidence, isn't a solution to the problem.

This thread is like an application for the job to be "logical fallacy king".

You are not intelligence, you do not have intelligence. Your brain is but a compact microcosm of 'evolution' and everything you think and have ever thought is natural selection. If there is such a thing as intelligence, it is only another natural force of nature, making this universe 'intelligent' and possessing the potential for intelligent design.

Either an intelligence had something to do with the creation of this universe, or one didnt. Why do you say one didnt, and why are you so sure of your thought on this matter? You are not very smart or knowledgeably, how can you trust your accidentally made brain to be correct? Is it impossible for an intelligence to ever create a universe? What is consciousness, how does it work, how is it made? (The universe is not intelligent and figured this out many times over, id expect a supreme intelligence such as yours to easily know the answers to those questions, and the 30 or so tough or so questions I posed in my last few replies)

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

If you existed in an intelligently designed universe, how would you know? What could this universe have that would let you know it was designed intelligently?

Trademark or patent information short of that its a matter of faith.

So you are saying its impossible to know truth. Does knowing the truth not matter? is there any value to knowing the truth? If you exist in a universe intelligently created and you dont recognize does it matter? if you live in an intelligently created universe and you do does it matter? If you are interested in the truth, and you exist in an intelligently created universe, but there are no trademark or patent information, do you have any hope of deducing the truth using logic and ration and reason? Or the truth cant be known? If you were to intelligently design a universe with many beings within it, can you tell me how you would go about that? Is it impossible for an intelligence to ever create a universe? Can an intelligence create a non intelligent universe? Can an intelligence create a more intelligently designed universe then then another intelligence? Is there a most intelligent design?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

If you existed in an intelligently designed universe, how would you know? What could this universe have that would let you know it was designed intelligently?

Trademark or patent information short of that its a matter of faith.

So you are saying its impossible to know truth. Does knowing the truth not matter? is there any value to knowing the truth? If you exist in a universe intelligently created and you dont recognize does it matter? if you live in an intelligently created universe and you do does it matter? If you are interested in the truth, and you exist in an intelligently created universe, but there are no trademark or patent information, do you have any hope of deducing the truth using logic and ration and reason? Or the truth cant be known? If you were to intelligently design a universe with many beings within it, can you tell me how you would go about that? Is it impossible for an intelligence to ever create a universe? Can an intelligence create a non intelligent universe? Can an intelligence create a more intelligently designed universe then then another intelligence? Is there a most intelligent design?

Doesnt matter in the least bit. The only thing it means to humans is we wont ever know the answer on how we were created.For all we know the designer was on drugs when you look how he put this all together but in the end does it matter no not really. Now let me ask you a question chemistry has laws and there not random certain interactions all ways occur. This is bound up with the laws of physics so its been around since the beginning of our universe. So if we know chemical processes strive for order and there is only one way for them to behave. Then when we look at DNA its chemicals. now which makes more sense the universe created a coder so it could create life or chemicals following there natural rules eventually created a living cells. Since im a physics major ill add this in our universe we have learned that any possibility will occur backbone of physics really.

Now i know you want to quote mathematics but look probability all ways wins in the end.Look at the odds of hitting the lottery but people do it.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Your brain is but a compact microcosm of 'evolution' and everything you think and have ever thought is natural selection.

This is the answer, I think. Our brains are subtle information processors, as the universe as a whole is a subtle and powerful (far ranging...as is the brain) physical information processor. The universes evolution is intelligence. intelligence (as in human) is a fast paced, efficient, physical (turns the physical environment into symbolic) --> subtle mental information...(which can in turn be arranged, in a process of evolution and growth and natural selction of ideas, to create 'intelligent' interruptions of the otherwise natural environment)---> Physical environmental rearranging.

An interesting thing to note and consider is how, assuemedly in any reality, it must be made up of 'smallest' components. Think about it. If the smallest most fundamental components were bowling ball sized, then yea they would be the smallest, but that would just create questions like how can something reletively so large be composed of fundamentally one "thing?" of large amount? what state was that somethingness in previously? What is the nature of the space between those atoms? So to no surprise our universe is seemingly created from the ground up, the smallest bits that are the essential pieces that go together in order to make anything larger. There are a knucklepuck ton of those small constituents, makes me wonder how they were all individually created so, and what they were before that. And that smallest stuff, is the truest basis of our reality is it not? And then there are a finite amount of things that can dictate what would come of those bits of information, like what they were previously, where they were, what the space or structure holding them is, is made of...

So I think the universe is very bizarre, much more then easy accepters give it credit for. I think the fact that you can exist, on this planet, and have a body and thoughts is ridiculous. I think the resolution of our vision is cool. The relative comfortability of being healthy and breathing. And I think the fundamental nature of space and the energy/particle/wave (mysteries) tells me that this universe is advanced and sophisticated. I would say an unintelligent universe would be an eternal pile of mud, with no potential to create trillions of planets with quadrillions of life forms who create art and histories and cultures. Or bad resolution like early video games, we would be block characters, or have glitches and skip.. Nope, this universe is more sophisticated then a million scientists can know, or think of. The average human could not come up with a more genious plan on creating a universe, trust me ive asked a bunch of really smart ones here on ats, and none could even answer...

reply to post by ImaFungi


I actually kind of agree with you my view on the universe is not thats its an intelligence per say. But more like Yin and Yang. The universe strives for balance you see it all over in physics. The ironic part is in striving for balance it creates aberrations for example black holes where balance is lost and gravity takes over. So then the universe has to correct that which is why black holes for a lack of a better term just dissipate. Matter existing in the universe was a side effect of probability going wrong once again the universe tries to straighten it out by creating space between universes spreading the matter out over further and further distances. And here's the scary part life itself oops another accident of probability, but that means the universe is trying to kill us. But on the positive note were still hanging in there. And we have probability helping us out so in the end who knows whats going to happen

Originally posted by ImaFungi

So I think the universe is very bizarre, much more then easy accepters give it credit for. I think the fact that you can exist, on this planet, and have a body and thoughts is ridiculous. I think the resolution of our vision is cool. The relative comfortability of being healthy and breathing. And I think the fundamental nature of space and the energy/particle/wave (mysteries) tells me that this universe is advanced and sophisticated. I would say an unintelligent universe would be an eternal pile of mud, with no potential to create trillions of planets with quadrillions of life forms who create art and histories and cultures. Or bad resolution like early video games, we would be block characters, or have glitches and skip.. Nope, this universe is more sophisticated then a million scientists can know, or think of. The average human could not come up with a more genious plan on creating a universe, trust me ive asked a bunch of really smart ones here on ats, and none could even answer...

That might be one of the most uniquely written observations about our universe that I've ever read. Border line genius.

It's true. Our vision resolution is really cool. And our universe is bizarre beyond words, sophisticated beyond our understanding.

And that a billion scientists still can't figure it out, but actually exist to at least try, says that the universe is indeed intelligent, and has a sense of humor too.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by ImaFungi

So I think the universe is very bizarre, much more then easy accepters give it credit for. I think the fact that you can exist, on this planet, and have a body and thoughts is ridiculous. I think the resolution of our vision is cool. The relative comfortability of being healthy and breathing. And I think the fundamental nature of space and the energy/particle/wave (mysteries) tells me that this universe is advanced and sophisticated. I would say an unintelligent universe would be an eternal pile of mud, with no potential to create trillions of planets with quadrillions of life forms who create art and histories and cultures. Or bad resolution like early video games, we would be block characters, or have glitches and skip.. Nope, this universe is more sophisticated then a million scientists can know, or think of. The average human could not come up with a more genious plan on creating a universe, trust me ive asked a bunch of really smart ones here on ats, and none could even answer...

That might be one of the most uniquely written observations about our universe that I've ever read.

Border line genius.

It's true. Our vision resolution is really cool. And our universe is bizarre beyond words, sophisticated beyond our understanding.

And that a billion scientists still can't figure it out, but actually exist to at least try, says that the universe is indeed intelligent, and has a sense of humor too.

Heres a couple of quotes you reminded me of from douglas adams

There are some oddities in the perspective with which we see the world. The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be, but we have done various things over intellectual history to slowly correct some of our misapprehensions.

There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

And one that fits this discussion

The world is a thing of utter inordinate complexity and richness and strangeness that is absolutely awesome. I mean the idea that such complexity can arise not only out of such simplicity, but probably absolutely out of nothing, is the most fabulous extraordinary idea. And once you get some kind of inkling of how that might have happened, it's just wonderful. And … the opportunity to spend 70 or 80 years of your life in such a universe is time well spent as far as I am concerned.

Originally posted by Barcs

If you cannot prove that DNA originated from a mind, you cannot possibly claim all known codes come from a mind. DNA is a known code, and it's origin is not understood yet.

Thanks Barcs. This is what I wanted to hear but that is not what I have been saying at all. No I cannot prove DNA originated from a mind. I have spoken about proof before and I have never once called it proof only inference to the best cause.

If I claimed that all known codes come from mind, that would not be correct. As you point out. If I did that then I do retract that statement. However...

What I have been saying is that the only known CAUSE of code comes from mind. This is true. And what the critics seem afraid to even admit.

The genetic code is the only unknown one and the very reason why the inference is being applied. If we knew its source there would be no reason for any of this.

Since in all of our experience we know the cause of codes come from a mind and have no other known mechanism we can infer based on this. Is it proof? No, it is inference to the only known cause.

Until we have another cause, intelligence remains the best explanation.
Until we have another cause, intelligence remains the only valid explanation.

To falsify the inference a unguided cause must be demonstrated.
The problem is that code escapes all physical causes because it is not physics.

This is a perfectly empirical argument based on known facts.

Since you admit we do not know the origin. All you have is an appeal to the unknown, and the inference remains intact.

This simply cannot be denied.

This in no way implies that the intelligence in question is God, so all apeals about who created God are irrelevant to the scientific inference.

reply to post by squiz


You were doing so well I was proud of you then you backtracked again. The problem with accepting intelligence as the only answer we have it ends there.We may one day prove that but we see no sign of intelligence any where we look only laws. And since the laws of the universe dominate everything I think its very likely we find some laws governing life itself as of yet were not aware of.

Look even chemistry is not a random process it has rules why because the entire universe is nothing but information any time you have information it finds a way to transfer information why should life be different then the rest of the universe?

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by squiz

 

You were doing so well I was proud of you then you backtracked again. The problem with accepting intelligence as the only answer we have it ends there.

Why thanks dragonridr, but I am not saying it is the only answer, just the only known answer. I am not seeing where I back tracked.

We may one day prove that but we see no sign of intelligence any where we look only laws. And since the laws of the universe dominate everything I think its very likely we find some laws governing life itself as of yet were not aware of.

Look even chemistry is not a random process it has rules why because the entire universe is nothing but information any time you have information it finds a way to transfer information why should life be different then the rest of the universe?

Exactly, all we see are physical laws, when we call everything information we are referring to classical shannon information which does not consider the meaning of a message. Meaning must be interpreted by something else. Codes transfer information not by physical laws but through symbolic meanings. This is why I say that semiosis is not physics. There are no physical constraints between the sign and the interpretant, and there are no physical constraints between the object and the sign. This is the same problem as the mind body problem.

Once again it is not proof, only an inference to the only known cause.

reply to post by squiz


Well I see your point however let me ask this you admit signs must have meaning correct? So can we prove that these signs have meaning not just information let me explain the difference.Signs are everywhere that's really information the key becomes does information have meaning.

I can make up a totally new word like say krugsmosis problem is no meaning so no one can interpret it but its still a sign. Now do cells process information through replication ans it happens that way because its not truly a code but chained amino acids and after all chemistry has rules to govern all chemical reactions. Or does cell truly interpret the information swapping out symbols for meaning?This is the key does a cell see an amino acid and know it means something else I'm not sure that it does and we definately can't prove it does not yet.

reply to post by dragonridr


A sign consists of two qualities of information. The physical medium (classical shannon) and the intangible functional meaning. However this meaning does not manifest until it is interpreted.

The codons are the signs they correlate to amino acids interpreted through the ribosome. It is semantic. There are other sign systems but this is the best example. If it were all just chemistry we would not call it a code, there would be no room for code. The diagram I've posted a few times clarifies.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by dragonridr

 

A sign consists of two qualities of information. The physical medium (classical shannon) and the intangible functional meaning. However this meaning does not manifest until it is interpreted.

The codons are the signs they correlate to amino acids interpreted through the ribosome. It is semantic. There are other sign systems but this is the best example. If it were all just chemistry we would not call it a code, there would be no room for code. The diagram I've posted a few times clarifies.

edit on 5-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Let me ask you this let's go along your premise that only intelligence has ever been proven to create code. Now I could say a life created the first living cell. My argument simple no code in the hisory of the world has ever been written by non life. So since only life can create life then in the beginning life must have poped into existance created life then left again. Now Just as your argument the theory is valid we can't prove it didn't happen that way. In fact you could argue logic says it has to be that way. Truth is though I'm arguing from the point of a negative proving something see my point.

So now we have a cingle cell pop into existence create the first life but had to go back to where ever it came from. So now we have a living cell reproduce to create the first life. Now you could argue with me all day long but truth is no code has ever been made by anything other then life you must be wrong! Kind of see where the problem of your argument is?

Originally posted by squiz
Thanks Barcs. This is what I wanted to hear but that is not what I have been saying at all. No I cannot prove DNA originated from a mind. I have spoken about proof before and I have never once called it proof only inference to the best cause.

You said that it is considered objective positive evidence. It is not and my last posts have demonstrated exactly why. Loose inference to the 'best cause' is absolutely subjective and I explain it below.

What I have been saying is that the only known CAUSE of code comes from mind. This is true. And what the critics seem afraid to even admit.

The genetic code is the only unknown one and the very reason why the inference is being applied. If we knew its source there would be no reason for any of this.

Backtracking aside, that's why it is not considered objective evidence for intelligent design. It is unknown, so appealing to a design is invalid and is essentially "god of the gaps".

All known codes come from HUMANS. Does that mean humans are the most likely explanation for DNA? Oh no, you'll suddenly deny that one, despite following the same EXACT logic that you used to say 'a mind' rather than humans. No other KNOWN intelligent lifeforms exist in that capacity, so who are you describing?

Please explain in detail, logically, why your inference is valid and this one is not:

1. All known causes of origins of phenomena in the universe are naturalistic, except things that are man made.
2. DNA is a phenomena in the universe and is not man made.
3. DNA has naturalistic origins.

I'm just going with the most likely cause, right? Your inference is different or more 'logical' right? Please explain.

Until we have another cause, intelligence remains the best explanation.
Until we have another cause, intelligence remains the only valid explanation.

Aside from human creations, not a single thing in the universe has ever been determined objectively to originate via intelligent design. How does that suddenly become the most likely/valid explanation? It's a semantics trap, as I clearly demonstrated, it's not a logical inference. Logical inferences need to be based on facts ie:

1. All humans have bones
2. Tom is human
3. Tom has bones

Statement 1 is an undeniable fact, it doesn't appeal to KNOWN or unknown info or explanations. When you say all known codes originate from a mind, it's an incomplete statement, since we don't even know if minds as advanced as ours or greater exist anywhere else in the universe. What we do know is humans create codes, but unless they are proficient at time travel and avoiding paradoxes they did not create DNA because it predates humans by billions of years.

I'll ask again. What is the mechanism for intelligent design? It has not even been explained in the least yet.

I've already provided the mechanism for natural DNA. Evolution. If evolution affects genetics, then would it not make perfect sense that DNA itself has changed over time as well and became more complex as life did? To think DNA emerged in its current form originally is absurd.

Then we have artificial intelligence. This is also something that goes against your 'mind' argument. Computers can generate codes that do not come from a human mind. AI software can adapt, and learn from how you play the game, and react to what you do. Some scientists have even created brain emulation machines that can debate them on existence. Humans did NOT generate all of the codes, the computer did generated many on its own. Yes humans may have originally programmed it to adapt (before you ignore my point and argue semantics again), but the adaptation itself happens without humans generating those particular codes. So there's another example of a code that was not directly from the human mind.

Also I'd appreciate it if you could define specifically what you consider to be digital as per your arguments. I'm interested in the criteria. Thank you.

reply to post by ImaFungi


I understand where you are coming from, but please note this thread title is "intelligent first cause: why it must exist". I am arguing against the notion that it MUST exist. Yes, it might exist. I'm not saying it's definitely wrong, I'm saying there is not objective evidence to suggest such a thing. I do like your posts generally because they delve deep into philosophy, which is cool, but it doesn't suggest that an intelligent first cause must exist.

Also, you are still illogically comparing biological organisms to man made machinery. There is a big difference how natural selection operates in nature vs humans building cars. There are no genetics or self replicating mechanism in cars. Cars don't give birth or pass down genes, they don't adapt to environments. Any person with the tools and knowledge can build one. This is not the same with lifeforms. Humans design cars for very specific purposes with specific features and power. If your leg breaks can you just replace it with a new one? Can you upgrade your eyes for night vision? Natural selection does not have a conscious mind and does not pick and choose based on what it likes or finds convenient. There is no goal, there is only survival and environmental changes that push for it.

reply to post by Barcs


Sorry my new theory explains it since no code has originated without life being involved this leads to the obvious answer. That a cell popped into existence multiplied then popped back out. To further back my theory we know only life can reproduce and only life can pass along DNA so obviously I've figured out first cause. And you can't prove me wrong see there's the basic problem arguing for a negative to get a positive. You end up arguing the wrong point.

PS I'm trying to prove a point to certain people I know this doesn't appy to you. Thx everyone

Originally posted by Barcs

All known codes come from HUMANS.

Not true.

1. All known causes of origins of phenomena in the universe are naturalistic, except things that are man made.
2. DNA is a phenomena in the universe and is not man made.
3. DNA has naturalistic origins.

First premise is false, humans are not the only beings that create codes. Your logic relies completely on humans being the only ones who make codes. Which is false. No. 3 is unsubstantiated.
That was easy.

Aside from human creations, not a single thing in the universe has ever been determined objectively to originate via intelligent design.

Not true.

I'll ask again. What is the mechanism for intelligent design? It has not even been explained in the least yet.

What's the mechanism for intelligent design? Ummm... Intelligence.

I've already provided the mechanism for natural DNA. Evolution

Really? that is your explanation? There is no evolution before code.

Then we have artificial intelligence.

No we don't.

Computers can generate codes that do not come from a human mind.

Computers are intelligently designed.

I give up explaining it to you, you simply don't or perhaps won't get it. To be perfectly blunt your logic is... not.

I am sure some do get it. It is not a loose inference at all.

There is only one way to refute it. You need to empirically demonstrate the unguided mechanism for semiosis. Simple as that. I am quite happy how this has turned out actually. I think I can just ignore you from now on. You don't offer anything except obfuscation. The inference is clear logical and empirical. Of course it takes some amount of reason and logic to comprehend it. So I don't expect you to get it.

reply to post by squiz


Ok you're doing it again don't attack people because they made a valid argument. And ignoring it just makes you look like a sore loser. Look saying an object was intelligently designed doesn't mean the object is intelligent. So when a computer designs code and they do doeesnt mean that by virtue the code was intelligently desIgned computers are still constructions no different then a car. If a car designed code would that prove the car was intelligent? Again arguing a negatuve with a positive boy its fun messing with people but has no true value.