Why Infinity and the Laws of Thermodynamics supports, if not proves the existence of God.

a reply to: Kromlech

I don't think you are understanding what I wrote there.

By Infinite it would mean to Contain or to Be All Things. Meaning God is Love, Beauty, etc.
But if Infinite would also mean to Contain or Be Evil, Spiteful, Mean, etc. as well.

God couldn't be Infinite and Exclude the Bad Stuff and Only Be the Good. To be Infinite would mean to Be Both.

Not just Mean Toward Evil. For Evil to Exist would mean God also would Be Evil.

Do you see what I'm saying???

a reply to: edmc^2

As to my "insertion" of God, what other logical reason but to conclude that - like I said - there MUST be a CAUSED FOR EVERY EFFECT.

And what caused God? If God is law, who is the lawmaker? And don't give me this uncreated bullcrap. You've spent half the thread impressing upon us that SOMETHING cannot come from NOTHING. Hence, God came from something. What was that something, and where did it come from?

As I pointed out before, your theory is flawed...unless you're willing to fill in the gaps with something other than presumptions and special pleading.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: edmc^2

I think you're mistaking circumstantial evidence for extrapolation based on assumptions. Give me your condensed circumstantial evidence and I will demonstrate what I mean.

E = m c 2 > if it takes a mind of an Einstein to put this together, what would it take to actually make it happen?

In other words if it takes intelligence to figure it out why is there no need for intelligence to make it happen?

It took intelligence to nail down the nature of lightning. It does not take intelligence to generate lightning.

It took intelligence to figure out how warm and cold air interacts to produce weather effects. It does not take intelligence to generate a rain storm.

It took intelligence to figure out how gravity works. It does not take intelligence to generate gravity.

It took intelligence to figure out what those twinkling lights in the night sky are. It does not take intelligence to be a star. On Earth or otherwise.

So according to you, the universe is intelligently designed, and must therefore have an intelligent designer. And now you just said that if it takes intelligence to figure out, then why wouldn't it take intelligence to make? The only possibility available for your god, at this point, is that he was also created. So tell me, who made God? And who made God's maker? And who made the guy who made God's maker?

You've got half a theory going, and that half is running on fumes, methinks. But I can offer a suggestion as to how you might improve the hobbling, crippled state of your premise. Try disproving it. Identify observations that would effectively disprove your theory, and try to elicit such observations through whatever means are at your disposal. Try to prove yourself wrong. But you gotta be honest about it or your theory isn't gonna get any better. Confirmation bias and whatnot. Honest investigation is the key to learning anything worth knowing.

post=18032263]edmc^2[/post]

As to my "insertion" of God, what other logical reason but to conclude that - like I said - there MUST be a CAUSED FOR EVERY EFFECT.

The completely illogical and self defeating nature of this quote, in context, is quite amazing...persistent though, perhaps some things are infinite........

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
edmc^2

As to my "insertion" of God, what other logical reason but to conclude that - like I said - there MUST be a CAUSED FOR EVERY EFFECT.

The completely illogical and self defeating nature of this quote is quite amazing...perhaps some things are infinite........

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: edmc^2

I think you're mistaking circumstantial evidence for extrapolation based on assumptions. Give me your condensed circumstantial evidence and I will demonstrate what I mean.

E = m c 2 > if it takes a mind of an Einstein to put this together, what would it take to actually make it happen?

In other words if it takes intelligence to figure it out why is there no need for intelligence to make it happen?

It took intelligence to nail down the nature of lightning. It does not take intelligence to generate lightning.

It took intelligence to figure out how warm and cold air interacts to produce weather effects. It does not take intelligence to generate a rain storm.

It took intelligence to figure out how gravity works. It does not take intelligence to generate gravity.

It took intelligence to figure out what those twinkling lights in the night sky are. It does not take intelligence to be a star. On Earth or otherwise.

So according to you, the universe is intelligently designed, and must therefore have an intelligent designer. And now you just said that if it takes intelligence to figure out, then why wouldn't it take intelligence to make? The only possibility available for your god, at this point, is that he was also created. So tell me, who made God? And who made God's maker? And who made the guy who made God's maker?

You've got half a theory going, and that half is running on fumes, methinks. But I can offer a suggestion as to how you might improve the hobbling, crippled state of your premise. Try disproving it. Identify observations that would effectively disprove your theory, and try to elicit such observations through whatever means are at your disposal. Try to prove yourself wrong. But you gotta be honest about it or your theory isn't gonna get any better. Confirmation bias and whatnot. Honest investigation is the key to learning anything worth knowing.

A great analogy I heard about science. It's like building a boat, then inviting everyone to try and sink it. If it floats, it could have some merit.

The bilge pump is working overtime on this boat (in more ways than one) and I think the crew have abandoned ship.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

A great analogy I heard about science. It's like building a boat, then inviting everyone to try and sink it. If it floats, it could have some merit.

If they had done that with the titanic, they could have saved a lot of lives. It's a good idea to make sure that your confidence is a matter of diligence and not simply optimism.

I''m convvinced that athiesm will argue God is fake even after they die for infinity.Atomic explosion could happen in New York and here comes the atheist along to argue God is fake 24/7 rehash that never stops.

I also grow tired of How questions when no one on the entire planet knows how life began.

The why questions make more sense to me? Best Why question is.Why do judea and christian values triumph and rule the entire planet?

originally posted by: Jobeycool
I''m convvinced that athiesm will argue God is fake even after they die for infinity.Atomic explosion could happen in New York and here comes the atheist along to argue God is fake 24/7 rehash that never stops.

I also grow tired of How questions when no one on the entire planet knows how life began.

The why questions make more sense to me? Best Why question is.Why do judea and christian values triumph and rule the entire planet?

Someone is clearly new to the concept of research.

originally posted by: Jobeycool

The why questions make more sense to me? Best Why question is.Why do judea and christian values triumph and rule the entire planet?

Erm, they don't. I take it you've never traveled abroad?

a reply to: edmc^2

We're really going around in circles here. You have no hard evidence for a "god" or a "creator". It's simply your opinion that the relationships you make are evidence of a creator.

Hard evidence is evidence that is tangible. Your evidence has no legs. The Fibonacci series does not point to a creator or anything else. It's simply a series of numbers with a mathematical pattern.

Also, all the relationships that you have made always end in a question "But compare this to single blade of grass, was it created by someone with intelligence or was it a product of an undirected chance event? That no one created it? "
If your evidence was that sound, there would be no problem validating it and you wouldn't be answering each post with another question.

Your comment: "In fact the evidence can be considered hard evidence if you're not too bias against it." Hard evidence is conclusive. It's one or more facts that can be observed by anyone else and they will come to the same conclusion. A knife with blood on it can be matched to the murder victim by DNA evidence or blood typing. That's hard evidence. The knife is observable, the victim is observable and the lab tests are verifiable. You have none of that in your hypothesis. You only have your opinion that a creator was responsible for everything. An opinion is not hard evidence. It will always be an opinion unless you can show conclusive i.e. hard evidence.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

We're really going around in circles here. You have no hard evidence for a "god" or a "creator". It's simply your opinion that the relationships you make are evidence of a creator.

Hard evidence is evidence that is tangible. Your evidence has no legs. The Fibonacci series does not point to a creator or anything else. It's simply a series of numbers with a mathematical pattern.

Also, all the relationships that you have made always end in a question "But compare this to single blade of grass, was it created by someone with intelligence or was it a product of an undirected chance event? That no one created it? "
If your evidence was that sound, there would be no problem validating it and you wouldn't be answering each post with another question.

Your comment: "In fact the evidence can be considered hard evidence if you're not too bias against it." Hard evidence is conclusive. It's one or more facts that can be observed by anyone else and they will come to the same conclusion. A knife with blood on it can be matched to the murder victim by DNA evidence or blood typing. That's hard evidence. The knife is observable, the victim is observable and the lab tests are verifiable. You have none of that in your hypothesis. You only have your opinion that a creator was responsible for everything. An opinion is not hard evidence. It will always be an opinion unless you can show conclusive i.e. hard evidence.

Evidently, Edmc expects the laws of physics to flip-flop frequently and unpredictably in the absence of a higher power. Because, you know, that's how disorder is supposed to work? Or something like that.

Some people will only be convinced there is no god when there is no longer any existence at all. Which makes me wonder what in the world convinced them there was no Santa Claus or tooth fairy.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2

Agree. Reason for me bringing it out is to point the flaw in the logic of Something from Nothing.

That there's no such thing since an always existing something is the starting point of what comes out of it.

There's no other logical explanation otherwise will just have to accept that a total absolute unimaginable emptiness NOTHING was the Cause of all existence.

Right, so in this case Theology, Philosophy and Physics agree to the initial conditions. Once the definitions for Nothing, Void, etc. all match and everyone is using them in the same way.

As to my "insertion" of God, what other logical reason but to conclude that - like I said - there MUST be a CAUSED FOR EVERY EFFECT.

As logical beings when we observed an effect, we look for the caused.

If the effect exhibits pure genius then the cause must be someone with great intelligence.

The universe is such, thus there must be someone who caused it who posses great intelligence.

Ok let's talk about this now. You say the "First Cause" is one showing Genius and Intelligence because of it displaying complexity and order. Even more, the complexity and order also increase over time as well. Therefor this shows an Intelligent Creator as that "First Cause". That's what you're saying correct??

First let's talk about the use of "Laws" which you keep using. These "Laws" of the Universe who you claim must have a "Law Maker" that you say is God, I think you're mistaken, at least partially. They do have a "Law Maker" but it is Man, not God. Universal Laws are just Man's way of Simulating Reality by Extrapolating Information and Coding it in to our Language. We say that the "Law of Gravity" is what we measure and define it as but in reality it just Is. Calling it Gravity is even presumptuous since we're talking about a concept based off of an observed experience that we extrapolate measurements in to a coded language. That's some serious abstract processes going on there. What we define as any Universal Law, such as Gravity, is no more actual Gravity any more than what we define as "Tree" is an actual Tree. We could conceptualize and Define Tree for a thousand years and that concept would be nothing like the Actual Tree itself.

My point being that saying Laws need a Maker, that being God, because the "Universe obeys Laws" is not true. The Universe is what it is period. The ways we choose to simulate our experience with it into Language and Concepts are in no way actually connected other than to us and our coding method. There is no Law of Codes somewhere in the Galactic Library of the Universe keeping things in order, that's just how we Humans relate to the information we are recording from it.

This is also how it relates to your claim of "First Cause" intelligence. Since the Universe Just is......Period. What you are really saying when you talk about Universal Complexity and Order is actually Our Explanation for what we're seeing. We use numbers and symbols to code our measurements and observed experiences into a code which then gives the impression of Genius Complexity and Order. But those are just words and most are abstract concepts also rather than things, but as I said above, still aren't any closer to being those actual things, they're just symbolic coding for it.

So the real question is, what is Complexity anyway??? It's a concept that relates to something we call complexity and according to you something complex must come from something complex right??? But does it really??? How well do we really understand the Laws of Complexity??? Intuition and Logic may say nothing simple can become complex on it's own, but obviously it can, for example.

"A New Kind of Science" by Stephen Wolfram has shown this to be the case. A simple repetition of a simple rule set can sometimes produce complexity which is NOT predictable until it has been been processed.

he basic setup for Wolfram's cellular automata is very simple. There is a row of cells, each black or white. Then there is a rule that says what color each cell will be, based on the colors of a certain neighborhood of cells on the row above. What pattern one gets depends greatly on the rule one uses--which can be specified by saying what color a cell will be for every possible arrangement of neighboring cells.

Many of the rules do only very simple things--or at least make patterns that may be intricate but are ultimately very regular. Others become unpredictably complex. In other words a process of simple to complex on it's own.

Fractals are another example where by repeating a simple rule billions upon billions of times yields Infinite Complexity from a Simple Origin.

Let's not forget one my favorites like Phi or 1.168... 0.618,,, Which is our code for one way Nature Grows and how things approx. double into the Complexity around you. Fibbonacci used simple doubling of the previous number to approximate it's value but with it you can see first hand the process of Simple to Complex which is withing it. It's no wonder they called it the "Divine Proportion" and "Golden Mean" once you understand what it represents.

In a sense, Everything I've just shown you many have been called the Signature's of God by some and to some degree I would say they are correct, philosophically speaking that is. However, most also then make the mistake of then applying some preformed "God Concept" that they choose to believe on to these ideas, completely losing all it's meaning and corrupting it as they try to use it to "Prove their God" as Supreme. However, when properly understood you see that the Intelligent "First Cause" God isn't the Ultimate Complexity. It's Ultimate Simplicity. It's practically "Nothing" actually. That's the Magic of it in a way.

Hopefully you see what I'm getting at....

Nicely put moJom exept that you've boiled down prety everything in the universe to this - an untilligent enanimate unaware blind chance event was the creator / progenitor / inventor of everything - including the fundamental laws that govern the universe.

This means dumb luck made everything.

I think that is your bottom line.

Correct?

originally posted by: edmc^2
Nicely put moJom exept that you've boiled down prety everything in the universe to this - an untilligent enanimate unaware blind chance event was the creator / progenitor / inventor of everything - including the fundamental laws that govern the universe.

This means dumb luck made everything.

I think that is your bottom line.

Correct?

Not quite. But closer than we were I think. First of all, I wasn't talking about everything in the Universe. Everything in the Universe including the Universe itself is the measurable, quantifiable "Stuff". We were talking about the "First Cause" and the concept of Infinity.

Next, part of my point was that those "Laws of the Universe" you speak of are just Man's Language for our Experience. Such Universal Laws don't really exist in the real sense but just help us describe the Universe which simply IS. But we can come back to that, let's get to the idea of Chance and Dumb Luck.

We can establish at least that We exist. What existence is may be currently still a mystery but each of us individually can say one thing, I Am, or I exist or something like that. That I know. I don't even know for certain You exist, but I know I do. The same goes for you and everyone else individually speaking. But that's about it for right now.

Now, what you attribute or label as "Chance" or "Dumb Luck" I see completely the opposite, because as I said just above, the one thing for sure I can say is that I exist. Therefor whatever reason for my existing I don't see as just Dumb Luck or Chance. It was absolutely certain. After all I exist and that is absolute proof. Any other chance in that case either couldn't or didn't happen and I don't know of any other possibility. Therefor "Chance" or "Luck" is removed. Unless of course I am on the fence about my own existence.

The same goes for the Universe around me that I experience. It's here and where you seem to see some intelligence that fine tuned all these variables until they worked correctly verses all these other nonworking conditions, I see only one condition that obviously worked. It's either On or Off. No Intelligence is required for that. No need to establish any nonworking conditions that needed adjustments. Any condition resulting in Off doesn't exist. I can be sure of that because I exist, meaning I know for sure the On condition exists and that too was an absolute certainty. If it could go any other way, you and I wouldn't be here now debating anything.

Does that make sense???

a reply to: mOjOm

Now, what you attribute or label as "Chance" or "Dumb Luck" I see completely the opposite, because as I said just above, the one thing for sure I can say is that I exist. Therefor whatever reason for my existing I don't see as just Dumb Luck or Chance. It was absolutely certain. After all I exist and that is absolute proof. Any other chance in that case either couldn't or didn't happen and I don't know of any other possibility. Therefor "Chance" or "Luck" is removed. Unless of course I am on the fence about my own existence.

If it wasn't chance or dumb luck, then it was design. Are you saying your conception was predesignated, right down to the exact sperm that would succeed in fertilizing the egg? Because the fertilization process, between ejaculation and conception, is by no means a precise and efficient process. Ever seen a Black Friday sale? Then you have an idea of what goes on in there.

Your conception is no different from a random number generator. Same goes for myself, same goes for everyone on this forum. You press a button and what comes out, comes out. The only way any person is "meant to be" as they are is if they are genetically engineered for a particular skill or trait. Even then, there's no guaranteeing that as they grow up and learn who they are and who they want to be, they will decide to embrace that engineering and its goals. Maybe they were engineered to become a pianist but decide they love dentistry. They may be awesome at playing Bach, but nothing will give them more pleasure than examining a gleaming set of pearly whites. Point being, there's no "absolutely certain" about anyone except that they exist. And technically speaking, that's only a certainty from their frame of reference. Not how, not why...either the condom broke, or there was no condom. Boom. End of story. All there is to it.

As for your sentiments regarding the universe, I tend to agree. It feels as though there are inherent properties to the universe. Inherent properties that are the only way it can work, and if those properties are absent, so is existence. They are mutually inclusive, so...yeah. On or Off. Some might call that "intelligent design", but from where I'm sitting, it's no different from gravity. Is gravity intelligent? Not that I'm aware of. But is it effective? Absolutely. It has to be, to bring cohesion to an entire universe worth of mass.

Kinda like existence - the state of possessing the potential to affect or be affected. If you do not possess this potential, you do not exist. If you do exist, you possess this potential. There's no way around it.

originally posted by: ProfessorPlum
So the claim that "nothing created the universe" is illogical, but pushing the question back one more step and claiming "God created the universe, but nothing created God" is logical?

Checkmate. You win.

originally posted by: hawkinz

originally posted by: ProfessorPlum
So the claim that "nothing created the universe" is illogical, but pushing the question back one more step and claiming "God created the universe, but nothing created God" is logical?

Checkmate. You win.

Sorry but the laziness of some to even understand that when something is infinite or eternal it doesn't have beginning is mind boggling.

It's like saying infinite space was created by something equally infinite.


It doesn't make sense just like saying that an unthinking inanimate non living absolute empty nothing created everything including itself.

a reply to: mOjom

I got what you're saying BUT your not making sense.

For example you said:

Next, part of my point was that those "Laws of the Universe" you speak of are just Man's Language for our Experience. Such Universal Laws don't really exist in the real sense but just help us describe the Universe which simply IS.

Really?

So if gravity is "just Man's Language for our Experience " and that such "Universal Laws don't really exist in the real sense but just help us describe the Universe which simply IS."

Does this mean then that we can now jump off a building with no deadly consequences?

I hope that's not what you're saying.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
I think the existance of God is painfully obvious. Nothing can be created or destroyed, but simply reformatted. What does that mean? God formed the universe from His own power. It was created by Him, from Him. God is in all things.

We exist because God created us. If one cannot arrive to that understanding independantly, then they will never be ready to learn about who God is.

Atheism is total willful ignorance. Agnosticism is slighly more respectable. God creates, and God reveals Himself to all who seek.

your post above has as many holes in it as does swiss cheese....you say Atheism is total willful ignorance....ignorance comes from the word ignore....to me, you are the one that ignores all other possible explanations EXCEPT for the existence of god....atheists do not....Atheists, in the simplest of explanations say, that humans should not blindly believe something that was believed thousands of years ago...why?...simple....human history and the progressive nature of expanded knowledge, shows that common constructs of human endeavors that were commonly believed in the past, are now, not necessarily true....the list of man's lies told to others for various reasons (control, personal gain, fear, joy, apathy, etc.) is long, and is soaked in the blood of skeptical thinkers.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

post=18032263]edmc^2[/post]

As to my "insertion" of God, what other logical reason but to conclude that - like I said - there MUST be a CAUSED FOR EVERY EFFECT.

The completely illogical and self defeating nature of this quote, in context, is quite amazing...persistent though, perhaps some things are infinite........

Hence quoting your word "insertion" proved my point that is doesn't make logical sense to say that God is just a made up word to be inserted whenever Cause and Effect is being discuss.

Because if there's no cause then it follows there's no effect.

Hence out of nothing comes nothing.