Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

Originally posted by jiggerj

Sorry, I don't go that way. Once I hit BS I stop, and I don't care how reputable or intelligent a person is.

On your statement of 'Except that it began'...so what? Water runs downhill. What's its conscious purpose, goal, agenda? There is no reason to expect water to have a cause.

If you haven't read the entire OP than you are in no place to be saying 'so what'.

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.

Like the beginning of the universe?

Originally posted by jiggerj

Like the beginning of the universe?

Like the beginning of the universe.
If I am to continue a conversation with you, I request that you read the OP. Entirely. Otherwise, good day, sir.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by jiggerj
There is NO reason to expect the universe to have a cause, purpose, or agenda. No justifiable reason at all.

And yet here we are..

LOL I bet that makes a lot of sense to you, doesn't it?

Well Pops all I can say is that I think it's infinitely better that there is this life than nothing at all, so it's justified from that perspective, that the creation is a good thing.

But the design aspects of it are quite extraordinary, I even offered up some evidence, but of course everyone just glossed over it in favor of the need to be right and to hold and cling to their pre-determined viewpoints..

reply to post by HarryTZ

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).

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

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.

Consciousness mean "to be aware" , how can "being aware" happen without something to "be aware of"? If you

The only thing that can Possibly happen in that situation is that "awareness is aware of itself", but if that happens then there is no "I" or "ME" to be recognized. There is no "body" so there is nothing to attach or identify with, it is just awareness being aware of awareness (itself) without thoughts/labels/words (sounds such only existence when there is TWO).

I am sure everyone has heard of the theory of dark matter. Dark matter is like 'God' or intelligent first cause; It cannot be observed directly

This may be true, or not, I don't claim to know; but what I DO know is, if it exists then it is also a part of existence which would still mean ALL is ONE).

Everything that exist is a part of existence.
Existence is matter and energy (and matter is energy just a bit more dense).
So all is one and there is no true "cause" and "effect" because that would imply TWO.

It is just a game WITHIN existence (time/space).

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Do you want some specific observable phenomena? I would tell you to take a look at literally anything in the universe, but I assume that that wouldn't be enough for you either.

Yes. Specific observable phenomena would be the very FIRST place to start. Let me look at the glass of whisky sitting next to me on my desk.

How does it's existence point to your Intelligent First Cause?

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Yes. Specific observable phenomena would be the very FIRST place to start. Let me look at the glass of whisky sitting next to me on my desk.

How does it's existence point to your Intelligent First Cause?

The fundamental mathematics (which must exist for any principle or property to exist in relation to another) that preceded the existence of the subatomic particles, which ultimately make up the glass and the whiskey.

reply to post by arpgme


I agree with everything that you are saying, however I explained it the way I did in the OP to make it as easy to understand as possible. While the concept of oneness must ultimately precede all other phenomena, it is was not necessary for me to address it for the thread to serve its purpose.

As soon as science begins to go beyond what can be observed, regardless of what belief a scientist has, be it atheism or theism, philosophy is the next frontier.
There, we build the foundation of the ideology we decide to live according to as we journey through time and space and interact with the visible and invisible world around us.

In the end, it all comes down to perspective and individual interpretation of the information as discovered by science.

I really do not care whether or not the Earth is billions or thousands of years old, and I do not care whether or not all aspects of the Darwinian theory of evolution through natural selection is correct, but what I do want to reflect upon and investigate further is the essence of existence, and that can only be done through philosophical means as of yet.

I personally believe in a divine intelligence, but not in the sense that it is a he or she or can be described in a physical manner, as I believe that what some refer to as God and others refer to as nature, is the universal intelligence, providing the information that is contained within the entire cosmos and is also the creator of the material world.

I believe that it is this intelligence, existence itself, that constituted the laws of physics which allowed the initial event, the big bang, to take place and from thenceforth continued to create in order to experience a physical existence.

...Actually, I think I would rather keep my philosophies to myself. Takes too many characters and time to explain it and debating philosophy is vanity, but, good thread.

To me personally, there is no question that reality goes beyond the material realm and design is present literally everywhere in the Universe.

reply to post by soyentist

Dear soyentist,

Thanks for a really good post with equally good questions.

Why is this important? Because it's a building block, or better, a foundation for our thinking. I can only deal with the information I have (or science can give me) right now. We all have to make decisions based on less than perfect proof. A lot of my decisions, and I suspect, the decisions of others, have ultimate roots in the question "Is there are a God, or am I only a collection of mechanical parts doing what the laws of physics tell them to do?"

If there is massive evidence in some area that there is a God, then the only smart thing is to live my life accordingly. Sure, all we have is our current understanding and inferences, but that's all we ever have. I can't wait to see what the inferences are like in 100 years, I have to decide today and every day with what I've got.

I guess it is just for the sake of discussion.

Not for me. As I said, I think this is one of the three or four most vital questions which exist. It's not cocktail party conversation for me.

I tend to get overzealous when I see a misunderstanding of scientific thought.

Good! You should. Remember though that there are different ways to misuse scientific thought. If I were to ask "How much heavier is the color yellow than the sound of a truck?" Any scientist would be completely justified in throwing me out of his office. That is not a question which can be answered by any scientific theory or experiment.

Same thing for asking for physical evidence of God. It's just not gonna happen.

The Big Bang can't be replicated, an important test for scientists, but it has won favor because it seems to fit with what we know and the inferences we make currently. Other theories are knocking on the door, waiting to be let in.

The OP is saying that Intelligent design answers all the questions that the Big Bang does, plus the additional question of how it all got started. I've not heard of any theory that offers an answer to that question. Maybe we shouldn't discard it yet.

With respect,
Charles1952

Consciousness creates. The big bang led to the formation of life, but it is obvious that life cannot come.from not-life. So consciousness must have initiated the physical processes.

Take your own consciousness for example. I see ky own consciousness as a reverberation from a higher order consciousness of which I am a.part.of. I have will and I can create with it because I am alive. The idea of.consciousness observing nothing is also a reverberation from a higher order into my life. Everything you see is seen through a dirty filter where at the point of seeing, what is seen is not whats really there. You just see your subjective perspective.

So could that ultimately mean there is really nothing to see? Maybe. Why else is there no such thing as an absolute perspective? Maybe instead.of asking, "what am I that I cant see what is really there", you should ask, "what is the world that it can be seen in an infinite number of ways?“

Originally posted by HarryTZ
The difference between me and the average scientist, is that I don't immediately reject a theory because it 'seems to mystical'.
The biased perspective that many scientists have is very limiting and ignorant. Objectively, a theory of 'God' or intelligent design is just as valid as any other theory. Open your minds and maybe we will finally get somewhere.

No, it's not, because a theory needs to be "tested" in order to be a theory. You can't test imagination.

Well Pops all I can say is that I think it's infinitely better that there is this life than nothing at all, so it's justified from that perspective, that the creation is a good thing. But the design aspects of it are quite extraordinary, I even offered up some evidence, but of course everyone just glossed over it in favor of the need to be right and to hold and cling to their pre-determined viewpoints..

reply to post by NewAgeMan


It's not a matter of glossing anything over. It's a matter of searching for the truth - not for justification to leap to an unknown, illogical conclusion. Hence, my signature.

reply to post by jiggerj


So Pops, what do you think of the evidence I put forward?


P.S. He already gave me permission to call him "Pops" so it's never meant in a disrespectful manner but more of a playful banter and maybe even perhaps in deference to my "elder", even though I'm now middle aged at 46.

reply to post by HarryTZ


Your entire argument is a fallacy from the start where you say that the complexity we have now must arise from a complex entity... You throw critical thought out the door by claiming that this thing you describe with the word "God" is a complex consciousness/entity that somehow created the components that make itself up. Ergo you are saying this thing created itself before it existed, or alternatively, it was always in this complex form and there was never any process by which the thing came into existence. Both hypothesis lead to the obvious conclusion that no such entity exists in a way that gives it the right to say "I created the universe/myself".

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.

It may suit you to deal with your existential crisis by channeling your bewilderment onto a father figure that takes care of the problem of existence. However, no such entity can justify existence. However, you will fight against this notion no doubt, because without the protective "God" complex to protect your mind you would likely go insane.

Originally posted by WorShip
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

Your entire argument is a fallacy from the start where you say that the complexity we have now must arise from a complex entity... You throw critical thought out the door by claiming that this thing you describe with the word "God" is a complex consciousness/entity that somehow created the components that make itself up. Ergo you are saying this thing created itself before it existed, or alternatively, it was always in this complex form and there was never any process by which the thing came into existence. Both hypothesis lead to the obvious conclusion that no such entity exists in a way that gives it the right to say "I created the universe/myself".

"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.

It may suit you to deal with your existential crisis by channeling your bewilderment onto a father figure that takes care of the problem of existence. However, no such entity can justify existence. However, you will fight against this notion no doubt, because without the protective "God" complex to protect your mind you would likely go insane.

I feel this is more of a personal attack than a substantial addition to your argument and therefore, I am not going to acknowledge it further.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy

Originally posted by HarryTZ
The difference between me and the average scientist, is that I don't immediately reject a theory because it 'seems to mystical'.
The biased perspective that many scientists have is very limiting and ignorant. Objectively, a theory of 'God' or intelligent design is just as valid as any other theory. Open your minds and maybe we will finally get somewhere.

No, it's not, because a theory needs to be "tested" in order to be a theory. You can't test imagination.

You obviously do not know what you are talking about. String theory is not and probably cannot be tested. Dark matter is not and probably cannot be tested. Dark energy is not and probably cannot be tested. As I said in a previous post, we just assume these things exist because of the effect they have on the universe. "God" or consciousness is the same, however the biases and taboos which surround both of these words are preventing science from acknowledging the possibility.

reply to post by WorShip

It seems safe to say, based on the calculations of Hawking and others earlier in this thread, that the complexity of life could not have occurred by chance. We don't have names for numbers large enough to describe the odds against chance.

Taking the position that

it was always in this complex form and there was never any process by which the thing came into existence

leads to no particular problem in saying "I created the Universe," Christians believe that. I don't think anyone in this thread, or anywhere else that I've seen, claims that God created Himself.

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.

And the simple elements came from where? Also see the calculations I mentioned above.

Even this so called "God" which may have existed prior to the BigBang cannot say, I created the universe,

Sure he can. The idea that God's consciousness is fundamentally the same as a kitten's is extraordinarily difficult to accept. Perhaps if you explained the meaning of the terms you're using?

It may suit you to deal with your existential crisis by channeling your bewilderment onto a father figure that takes care of the problem of existence. However, no such entity can justify existence. However, you will fight against this notion no doubt, because without the protective "God" complex to protect your mind you would likely go insane.

I never did like ad hominem arguments, they seem petty and mean.

Originally posted by jiggerj

It's not a matter of glossing anything over. It's a matter of searching for the truth - not for justification to leap to an unknown, illogical conclusion. Hence, my signature.

What is illogical about it? The idea of a creator is much more logical than claiming that the universe just decided to start existing in the infinitely complex way it does from the oblivion of non-existence. That claim makes no sense for obvious reasons.

Here's something else to think about.

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.

This also gives a whole new meaning to the phrase, "taking things for granted".