It's ILLOGICAL to think God didn't Create the Universe

originally posted by: toktaylor
It is illogical to think that a GOD does exist.

You think its illogical to think something logical created the logical world.

I think its logical to think something Logical created the logical world.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: toktaylor
It is illogical to think that a GOD does exist.

You think its illogical to think something logical created the logical world.

I think its logical to think something Logical created the logical world.

You're looking at it wrong. The world is lovely, harmonious and in some ways almost magical. Earth is a priceless gem, a national treasure. She has no equal. But then humans happened, proof that if there is a god, he is pernicious and sanctimonious. The world doesn't need god, we do, because disease loves company. God is a sick pompous reflection of two scientific facts: humans are cowards, and humans are morbidly entitled. No one needed god or a soul or an afterlife until we, in our infinite hubris, invented all three of those things because having one simple life in one mortal realm isn't enough. We can't ever get enough. But we're so deeply ashamed of our gluttony that we had to disguise our salvation as a gift from god because then it's a blessing we have earned instead of an abomination we created to protect us from our own vile putrid biological inevitability. How dare we be such basic carbon life forms doomed to expire and decay. Our egos simply couldn't accept it. And that's where intelligent design saved the day, our majestic ineffable cosmic sugar daddy we can always count on to make sure our existential "get out of jail free" card is always loaded. It's cute, in a way, but transparently futile and devoid of basic scientific fact.

I should add that this is far from equating to nihilism, it simply implies that meaning (like all language) is a translation of our earthly constructs and achievements. It's not "pointless" unless you are mired in a rigid black and white attitude of eternal gratification or nothing.

originally posted by: toktaylor
It is illogical to think that a GOD does exist. The simplest answer may not always be the correct one, but if we’re going to demand that God be part of the equation, we should at least have a very good reason for doing so. God not only adds to the complexity of the equation, but also requires us to assume supernatural entities can and do exist, and that they are capable of extraordinary things, such as eternally existing outside of time and space, and able to call forth matter and energy out of nothing… and these are no small assumptions. An eternal Universe, on the other hand, does not require any such fanciful thinking.

If we’re willing to accept that some things can naturally exist and start out simple, and become more complex over time, why not simply say this is what happened with us?

There' s so many problems with this post. You said:

If we’re willing to accept that some things can naturally exist and start out simple, and become more complex over time, why not simply say this is what happened with us?

Because science can't say this is simply what happened with us. There's no simple explanation. The explanations just become more complex in order t explain the fine tuning of the universe. You hear:

We need an infinite multiverse with a universal wave funcion. There's no evidence that this universal wave function exists or how all of these universes are generated. Every morning, if I watch ESPN do I generate 2,000 universes with versions of me watching every one of my cable channels? How do I have a favorite channel or a favorite food in the context of MWI where there's no choice just the evolution of the universal wave function? THIS IS SIMPLER LOL!!!

Are there 10^500 false vacua like in the srting theory landscape where they still can't find a universe fine tuned like ours?

The fact is, in order to explain why our universe exists, Science has to propose an eternal or infinite cause. They could have read the Bible and found out that an eternal and infinite God caused the universe to exist.

How does God add to the complexity?

It's amazing that people think intelligence, awareness, logic and reason only emerged 10,000 years ago in a universe that scientist now tell us came from an eternal or infinite cause. So it's hard to grasp that an intellect greater than ours exist? WE"RE NOT EVEN A TYPE 1 CIVILIZATION!!! The Hubris of humans !!

This is what I call a Lucifer mindset that goes back to the tower of Babel. Men and women actually think there limited minds and understanding is the highest intellect there ever was or ever will be?? Tesla said:

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” ― Nikola Tesla

Sadly, materialist are like zealots stuck in Plato's cave and they control the scientific establishment. They start with the priori that everyhing HAS TO fit into materialism and everthing that doesn't is pseudoscience. This is absurd when materialist can't even prove that the material has an objective existence. What we call matter can be no more than pixels that illuminate information like the code behind a website. ATS is built by a code that was designed by intelligence and the website that we see and experience is just pixels doing what the code instructs them to do.

Simple? You know have scientist saying spacetime is a quantun error correcting code. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?

How Space and Time Could Be a Quantum Error-Correcting Code

The same codes needed to thwart errors in quantum computers may also give the fabric of space-time its intrinsic robustness.

www.quantamagazine.org...

We already have evidence of the non physical. There's great evidence from smart people in the areas of psi and parapsychology. Of course, the zealots a.k.a. the materialist will never accept this. A recent paper said the wave function was real and non physical then there was an experiment done that showed information going from point A to point B without transmitting a particle.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.

arxiv.org...

Of course you didn't hear a peep about this from materialist zealots.

Professor of Statistics at UC Irvine, Jessica Utts was commissioned by the Government to do a statistical analysis of psi phenomena like remote viewing. Her study showed the psi effects are real and they have a greater effect size than the studies that say aspirin can prevent a second heart attack. Even the skeptic she worked with said these psi effects are real but they MUST have a natural explanation.



Here's more:



Also, here's a very good breakdown of Danie's 70 week Prophecy. Daniel predicted the year the decree would go out to rebuild the temple, the year the Messiah would start His Ministry, he said the Messiah would be cut off but not by his own hands, he predicted the temple would be destroyed by the Roman Empire before a Roman Empire existed.



Of course, materialist will not watch these things with an open mind, they're zealots who start with the priori that materialism HAS TO explain everything no matter how convoluted and illogical the explanations or non explanations are.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Because science can't say this is simply what happened with us.

Science was not a part of what you quoted.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: toktaylor
It is illogical to think that a GOD does exist.

You think its illogical to think something logical created the logical world.

I think its logical to think something Logical created the logical world.

This just makes sense.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
instead of an abomination we created to protect us from our own vile putrid biological inevitability.

Ahh and there it is! the admission that it is in fact logical. logic is unavoidable when describing biological constructs. Even the most basic prokaryote perpetuates with factory-like metabolic processes.

I should add that this is far from equating to nihilism, it simply implies that meaning (like all language) is a translation of our earthly constructs and achievements. It's not "pointless" unless you are mired in a rigid black and white attitude of eternal gratification or nothing.

Nah you only twist logic when it doesn't infer the conclusion you want it to.

originally posted by: Romeopsi

"You think its illogical to think something logical created the logical world.

I think its logical to think something Logical created the logical world."

This just makes sense.

Yeah it's pretty plain to see unless someone is trying not to see it. Their response is classic, they knew that this straight-forward logic is true, so they have to convolute the matter to try to avoid concluding the obvious.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Erno86

@ 18:54

He only formed about 5 different amino acids. But the thing is, that's not even the hard part of forming early prototypical life. Even if amino acids are a given in the environment, it is energetically unfavorable for them to self-polymerize. So much so that any presence of water will spontaneously degrade any amino acid chains. So if amino acid polymerization is unfavorable in water, it is not possible for these theorized amino acid chains to be formed in a water environment. Not to mention you would need nucleotide sequences as well to code for the amino acid sequences, as well as cell membranes to maintain these polymers. The proteins also need chaperone proteins to be folded properly into a functional quaternary structure. These sequences also need modulators to know when to express the various genes or not. From memory, even the most simple prokaryote still has over 500 genes.

It's just not plausible given the fact that water degrades amino acid and nucleotide sequences

Although I did find it ironic they referred to the mere formation of a simple amino acid monomer as "a stroke of genius". This is a Freudian slip admitting that the dawn of life most definitely requires intelligence.

"Just as prey animals evolved to run faster or secrete toxins to survive predators, the first biological molecules might have evolved to cope with water's chemical attacks --- and even to harness its reactivity for good."

source: "How the first life on Earth survived its biggest threat --- water."

www.nature.com...

originally posted by: cooperton
Ahh and there it is! the admission that it is in fact logical. logic is unavoidable when describing biological constructs.

This is such a sad stretch.

The study of anything has -ology added to it which ends up ends up giving -logical when conjugated.

It is a semantic argument and a poor one at that when you realize that it means that biology (study of life) is logical and not the origin.

a reply to: daskakik

Your argument is illogical. If there is logical aspects of biological creatures then obviously there is logic involved in what generated them. If you weren't so averted to logic you would realize this quite easily. 5 year olds could understand this concept, but not bull-headed adults apparently

To theorize that logical things can come to be illogically is the most illogical argument imaginable.

a reply to: cooperton
That was never my argument, so you fail, and that wasn't the point I was making in that post.

I was pointing out how dumb it was to continuously point out "the word has logical in it" as any kind of argument.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: daskakik

Your argument is illogical. If there is logical aspects of biological creatures then obviously there is logic involved in what generated them. If you weren't so averted to logic you would realize this quite easily. 5 year olds could understand this concept, but not bull-headed adults apparently

To theorize that logical things can come to be illogically is the most illogical argument imaginable.

What is logical about the Universe??? If we strip away all the living and man-made objects from earth, we’re left with little more than gasses, water, dirt, rocks, magma, etc. It’s a very natural landscape that void of any clearly designed complex objects.
Looking beyond earth, we see a very natural Universe that also lacks clear signs of advanced complexity.

We see things like spherical stars and planets, but spherical shapes emerge naturally whenever gravity applies equal pressure to all sides of an object. And we see spiral galaxies, but these can also form naturally.
The landscapes of planets and moons also appear random and natural. Take our moon for example; if God directs the trajectory of every meteor that impacts its surface, he could’ve had them form a recognizable pattern (such as a smiley face).

Why would a designer even want to leave debris floating in space? Where it can crash into moons and planets at seemingly random times?

And why design entire galaxies that collide with one another? Wouldn’t a designer want to place enough distance between them so that this never happened? Such events give us the impression that nature is chaotic and random, not carefully designed.
The only real complexity I observe stems from living things, which may owe their existence to their roots in the microscopic world. Earth’s landscape — and the entire Universe — seems void of any inanimate God-made objects that might clue us into his existence.

originally posted by: toktaylor

What is logical about the Universe??? If we strip away all the living and man-made objects from earth, we’re left with little more than gasses, water, dirt, rocks, magma, etc. It’s a very natural landscape that void of any clearly designed complex objects.

Orbits perpetuate to such precise consistency that I know where the sun and stars will be 50 years from now. It's ordered and logical, not random and chaotic. The illogical generation fairy tale we were told growing up is simply not backed by what we observe with the natural and cosmological world. Itgoes according to logical progressions, not random illogical chaos. Einsteins field equations are another example of the mathematically precise nature of the cosmos.

The only real complexity I observe stems from living things, which may owe their existence to their roots in the microscopic world. Earth’s landscape — and the entire Universe — seems void of any inanimate God-made objects that might clue us into his existence.

It's far more likely, if not absolutely definitive, that logical beings are created by something logical rather than illogical. If someone can't accept that then there's really no reason to continue the conversation. If logic is denied then there is no use having a logical conversation

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: toktaylor

What is logical about the Universe??? If we strip away all the living and man-made objects from earth, we’re left with little more than gasses, water, dirt, rocks, magma, etc. It’s a very natural landscape that void of any clearly designed complex objects.

Orbits perpetuate to such precise consistency that I know where the sun and stars will be 50 years from now. It's ordered and logical, not random and chaotic. The illogical generation fairy tale we were told growing up is simply not backed by what we observe with the natural and cosmological world. Itgoes according to logical progressions, not random illogical chaos. Einsteins field equations are another example of the mathematically precise nature of the cosmos.

The only real complexity I observe stems from living things, which may owe their existence to their roots in the microscopic world. Earth’s landscape — and the entire Universe — seems void of any inanimate God-made objects that might clue us into his existence.

It's far more likely, if not absolutely definitive, that logical beings are created by something logical rather than illogical. If someone can't accept that then there's really no reason to continue the conversation. If logic is denied then there is no use having a logical conversation

The universe is mostly chaotic and for the most part lacks structure. The reason why we see the structure we do is that scientists act like a sieve and focus only on those phenomena that have structure and are predictable. They do not take into account all phenomena; rather, they select those phenomena they can deal with.

a reply to: cooperton
The problem here seems to be your inability to recognize the limits of your own argument.

It's far more likely, if not absolutely definitive, that logical beings are created by something logical...

I cut it off because the rest is a leap into a false dichotomy fallacy.

So while it is "far more likely" it does not rule out something that you are calling illogical without really knowing if it is logical or not. It being "illogical" is just your personal POV.

originally posted by: toktaylor

The universe is mostly chaotic and for the most part lacks structure.

Not at all.

Stars have specific spectral radiance
orbits have consistent mathematically predictable periods
Earth's magnetosphere acts according to electric induction laws
axial tilt is predictable and goes according to predictable patterns
ionospheres maintain a consistent distance from planets and protect them from meteors
planetary spin rates have been consistent throughout astronomical history
We can predict a solar eclipse years and years ahead of its occurrence.
Starlight bends around massive objects as predicted by Einstein's field equations
Time goes slower as you go further from a gravitational object as predicted by Einstein as well.


It is all like clockwork, and can be calculated to a certain degree with cosmological analysis. You probably watched too many TV shows about space meant for mostly entertainment purposes... because the cosmos are actually very ordered and precise. Even meteor showers and certain comets have predictable orbits!

originally posted by: daskakik


So while it is "far more likely" it does not rule out something that you are calling illogical without really knowing if it is logical or not. It being "illogical" is just your personal POV.

No, you're saying that this whole thing came to be without intelligent design. This means you suppose no logic was involved. I think that Intelligence was involved in the creation of logical things. So you suppose the world came to be without logic (i.e. intelligence), I think it came to be with logic.

originally posted by: cooperton
No, you're saying that this whole thing came to be without intelligent design.

No, I am not. All along I have been saying we don't really know.

I think that Intelligence was involved in the creation of logical things.

What is a logical thing? And, what would be an illogical thing?

So you suppose the world came to be without logic (i.e. intelligence), I think it came to be with logic.

That is not really what I said, but you did say your part because somehow you labelled something that you can't comprehend illogical.

originally posted by: daskakik

No, I am not. All along I have been saying we don't really know.

Well if we use our logic to discover the answer, it would be a paradox if there was no logic involved in the answer we find.

What is a logical thing? And, what would be an illogical thing?

Logical would mean order and imply mathematical predictable, which we see in nature and cosmology. Illogical would mean random chaos creating order, which is purely speculative and not plausible.

That is not really what I said, but you did say your part because somehow you labelled something that you can't comprehend illogical.

I can comprehend evolutionary theory. I believed it for a while. But further analysis of biological systems made it quite evident that logic was involved

originally posted by: cooperton
Well if we use our logic to discover the answer, it would be a paradox if there was no logic involved in the answer we find.

Not necessarily.

Logical would mean order and imply mathematical predictable, which we see in nature and cosmology. Illogical would mean random chaos creating order, which is purely speculative and not plausible.

Why is it not plausible, because you can't imagine it being that way?

I can comprehend evolutionary theory. I believed it for a while. But further analysis of biological systems made it quite evident that logic was involved

So you changed your opinion. See that, your opinion has no bearing on what actually may have happened. You were able to change it without it changing anything.

post=26138532]cooperton[/post]

originally posted by: toktaylor

The universe is mostly chaotic and for the most part lacks structure.

Not at all.

Stars have specific spectral radiance
orbits have consistent mathematically predictable periods
Earth's magnetosphere acts according to electric induction laws
axial tilt is predictable and goes according to predictable patterns
ionospheres maintain a consistent distance from planets and protect them from meteors
planetary spin rates have been consistent throughout astronomical history
We can predict a solar eclipse years and years ahead of its occurrence.
Starlight bends around massive objects as predicted by Einstein's field equations
Time goes slower as you go further from a gravitational object as predicted by Einstein as well.


It is all like clockwork, and can be calculated to a certain degree with cosmological analysis. You probably watched too many TV shows about space meant for mostly entertainment purposes... because the cosmos are actually very ordered and precise. Even meteor showers and certain comets have predictable orbits!

originally posted by: daskakik

So you changed your opinion. .

No. Intelligent structures require logic

a reply to: neoholographic

Exactly, excellent post.

There’s a reason biology and computer programming share common language.

It’s called genetic code FFS.