Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

Originally posted by Wertdagf

Seems like the best post in this entire thread is being ignored.

The OP's assertions are obliterated and the paper which was posted is seen as the embarrassment to reason it should be. It comes as no surprise that the religious slink away and hide under the rocks they came from.

This is why America is falling so far behind in education.

What? I would recommend you be careful with your judgements. While religious beliefs may not coincide with yours (or mine) it is very arrogant to judge and insult those people who probably had no choice in the matter of their beliefs. And who knows, maybe God did create the Earth on the 7th day, and everything that science has ever proven is incorrect

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".

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.

Very good. I give you one point for this clear and critical burst of thought.

reply to post by NorEaster


Did you read my reply to that argument?

reply to post by charles1952


That is a very interesting article that deals with the the cosmology part of this debate.
The no intelligence it just all happened by chance theory is like swiss cheese it has so many holes.
But the big three are:

- Cosmology
- Abiogenesis
- Evolution

Nobody can prove with 100% accuracy and explain how all three of these from A-Z made all matter and life in the universe, there is as much faith placed in our current understanding of science by atheists in these theories, as theists place their faith in God creating it. Neither side has 100% proof, what we have is idea's and personal opinions.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Absolutely. Science and atheism are just as much religions as Christianity.

Originally posted by 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.

*****************************************************************************************************

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.

I'm glad that I read this. I've been having some doubts about my capacity to recognize flawed logic if it is contained within a complex construct, but I was immediately able to recognize the flaws within this arrangement as soon as I read it. Of course, it's predicated on the impossible notion of an infinite singularity existing relative to whatever it is that this absolute essence has created - without that relative nature of its own creation obliterating the logical requirement that itself (if it is an absolute, which a singularity inherently must be) must fulfill to be what such a "God" is (given the OP's basic premise). But even with that notion shunted away as ancillary, the existence-non-existence gymnastics were like a brass band coming right up the street for my bullsh*t detector, and it was refreshing to encounter a "unique" fallacy for a change, and to realize that I haven't allowed myself to be lulled into a false sense of critical perception as a result of the relentless rinse-repeat of so many hundreds of derivative notions hailed as revolutionary breakthroughs.

I love this thread. Well, once I get past the insults and blunt dismissals. I really do want to know what on Earth is rolling around in the heads of otherwise brilliant thinkers as they simply fail to run the basic questions all the way back to the actual point of initiation. If I can understand why the chase becomes derailed, for literally everyone who claims to be devoted to this one largest of pursuits, then maybe I can better figure out how to address what seems to me to be an absolutely implausible net result that has the entire human race either wandering in the dark or latched onto each other in a sort of Rumba line with absolutely no one leading that line anywhere but into the ass of the last guy in line, as they circle and circle and circle endlessly.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Did you read my reply to that argument?

Yeah




It was priceless. I also commented on it.

No hard feelings. I actually benefited nicely from it.

reply to post by NorEaster


I would qualify this as an insult or blunt dismissal. Care to explain the fallacy that you claim to see in my argument?

Specifically, I would be interested to hear your argument against this:

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.

Which I also restated differently here:

Now, you may argue that complexity is a subjective experience, and this may be true. However, when that complexity reaches infinity it is impossible to deny. Like I mentioned in a previous post, while something may seem simple in relation to our everyday lives, you must understand that it is infinitely specific with an infinite number of properties. Even the smallest of subatomic particles must be defined with infinite specificality for it to exist in the midst of a void.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I would qualify this as an insult or blunt dismissal. Care to explain the fallacy that you claim to see in my argument?

You can do a post search on me if you are actually interested in my views. 98% of my posts here have to do with my views on the initiation and development of physical existence, so you won't be wading through much else. If I believed that your mind was open, I'd bother to reply with any detail, but the last 8 pages suggest that you're preaching and teaching, and not looking for insight. At least not in this thread.

I've been ere for nearly 4 years now, and on many national and international forums over the years before this one. I know how this works, and have much less patience for pointless debate than I used to have as a result of more dead-end horse-corpse floggings than I care to recall.

I'm enjoying this thread. Shouldn't that be enough for you? I even gave you a star and a flag.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
Specifically, I would be interested to hear your argument against this:

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.

Which I also restated differently here:

Now, you may argue that complexity is a subjective experience, and this may be true. However, when that complexity reaches infinity it is impossible to deny. Like I mentioned in a previous post, while something may seem simple in relation to our everyday lives, you must understand that it is infinitely specific with an infinite number of properties. Even the smallest of subatomic particles must be defined with infinite specificality for it to exist in the midst of a void.

edit on 25-5-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)

No such thing as physical infinity.



I gotta run for now, but I'll be checking back later.

Originally posted by NorEaster

You can do a post search on me if you are actually interested in my views. 98% of my posts here have to do with my views on the initiation and development of physical existence, so you won't be wading through much else. If I believed that your mind was open, I'd bother to reply with any detail, but the last 8 pages suggest that you're preaching and teaching, and not looking for insight. At least not in this thread.

I'm not going to 'preach' and 'teach' something that makes no sense to me and goes against what I know, and neither will you. It's not that I'm not open-minded, it's just that after years of weeding through bull# that I once called my beliefs, I am now closer than ever before to my truth.

I've been ere for nearly 4 years now, and on many national and international forums over the years before this one. I know how this works, and have much less patience for pointless debate than I used to have as a result of more dead-end horse-corpse floggings than I care to recall.

I'm enjoying this thread. Shouldn't that be enough for you? I even gave you a star and a flag.

I am still interested in hearing your argument directly poised for this thread (and the parts I quoted).

Originally posted by NorEaster

No such thing as physical infinity.

I gotta run for now, but I'll be checking back later.

No no no, I want to hear your argument directly to what I said. I honestly do not have the patience to watch a 15-minute YT video right now (or probably any time in the foreseeable hours), which may or may not have anything to do with what I said.

EDIT: Okay, so I lied. I watched the video. And I must say... I was disappointed. what evidence did you use to back up your claim? There was literally no graspable information. You said Max Planck disproved infinity? How...? I see no disproving in that video, just a bunch of dancing around the subject, trying to make it sound legit without actually backing anything up. I expected more from you, sir.

EDIT EDIT:

Originally posted by ShaeTheShaman
you really just tried to debunk infinity??? im done with this site... bye

I read the first page and found it interesting that posters were belittling the OP for not having sufficient knowledge of the subject. The subject being the ultimate mystery, I should like to see their proofs to their theories.

Originally posted by HarryTZ

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.

Obvious reasons? First, the most illogical leap is to a god that has always existed. I'm not even saying it's wrong, I'm just saying it is illogical to make this assumption until this all-powerful god knocks on our atmosphere and says, 'Hello, there! I am god and I created the universe." On the reverse side, it is just as illogical to assume the universe was made from nothing. The assumptions that would fall at least somewhere in the logical department would be:

1. The universe has always existed in one form or another.
2. The universe is the product of a scientific experiment being conducted in another dimension.
3. The universe is a gas bubble floating through the bowels of a grass-eating herbivore in another dimension.

Originally posted by jiggerj
I'm just saying it is illogical to make this assumption until this all-powerful god knocks on our atmosphere and says, 'Hello, there! I am god and I created the universe."

But who would believe it? The theologists would say, "This must be the work of the devil!", and the atheists would be absolutely certain that there was some sort of scientific explanation. What form could God take, in what way would God make Godself obvious, that would not be instantly rejected without second though?

1. The universe has always existed in one form or another.

In what other form could it exist?

2. The universe is the product of a scientific experiment being conducted in another dimension.
3. The universe is a gas bubble floating through the bowels of a grass-eating herbivore in another dimension.

Likely.

reply to post by HarryTZ

In what other form could it exist?
3. The universe is a gas bubble floating through the bowels of a grass-eating herbivore in another dimension.

Likely.

Meet the things living in the universe known as your colon. Just as they are microscopic to us, who's to say that we aren't microscopic to another dimension?

Gut Flora

reply to post by jiggerj


'Dimension' is a really fluffy word. What exactly would you classify as a dimension?

reply to post by NorEaster


I noticed your YouTube had a quote from Descartes embedded. Descartes sought to prove God's existence. Although overall, I wasn't much impressed with the vid.

I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with it, that infinity does not exist, that the physical world is finite, that God doesn't exist, what?
Maybe even to prove that the theory of evolution is even finite and evolution mysteriously stops when man becomes a greedy fat pig?

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by jiggerj

 

'Dimension' is a really fluffy word. What exactly would you classify as a dimension?

That's not the point. You know what I mean.