Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
No winners in logic, only losers I'm afraid. Something either is logical or someone is wrong. That's the best thing about deductive reasoning, only the person making the claim is actually putting themselves out there. Like this idea of Intelligent Causation. If someone thinks it happened, they can make the case based on logic, and if it sticks, there really isn't much defense, until the known nature of the Universe itself changes, which has been known to happen.

Logically - have you ever not been here and now?
Has anything other than the present moment ever been available to you?
Is there a you separate from the present moment?
Can anything really be separated from the present?

Precognition is not one of my abilities, but I have been in the company of others that have seemingly demonstrated such abilities.

So instead of staying with what you can verify for yourself you refer to other people who know different. That is knowledge and belief.
You have to find out for sure if it is possible to separate yourself from the present happening - not rely on hearsay. If we are going to rely on hearsay then one could say 'I know someone who has met God - so I know he exists'.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

I was taking the statements as-is without including them into the larger framework.

Exactly!

In this regard, simply stating God is Timeless assumes the initial point that God exists.

The question itself assumes god exists! "Who created the creator?".

When taken into the thread at large, "The Universe was created by God because God is Timeless and existed before the Universe" -is- circular reasoning, to be assured.

Yes you have taken it out of context. That was not the question and why your application of begging the question in this case is actually a strawman.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

What is the big problem if some believe God exists?

I believe God exists and in my mind there is no doubt. I have proven God existence to my self.
If you and others havent found any proof to convince you. Its is more your problem than ours. There is no way any of us will convince you or any one else why we believe in God.

I don't have a problem with some believing in God. The problem arises when someone says that they can logically prove God's existence.

I have prooven Gods existence logically to my self. There is no set norm on logic, so trying to prove my logic to some one else as proof; is not a sure thing.

I used to be in doubt about the xistence of God, until i started to read math, science and about the Big Bang theories. I started to see the similarities between the Big Bang theory and Genesis chapter 1. Hardly anyone can see the similarities between them. Because it needs a bit of good will to get started.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
No winners in logic, only losers I'm afraid. Something either is logical or someone is wrong. That's the best thing about deductive reasoning, only the person making the claim is actually putting themselves out there. Like this idea of Intelligent Causation. If someone thinks it happened, they can make the case based on logic, and if it sticks, there really isn't much defense, until the known nature of the Universe itself changes, which has been known to happen.

Logically - have you ever not been here and now?
Has anything other than the present moment ever been available to you?
Is there a you separate from the present moment?
Can anything really be separated from the present?

Precognition is not one of my abilities, but I have been in the company of others that have seemingly demonstrated such abilities.

So instead of staying with what you can verify for yourself you refer to other people who know different. That is knowledge and belief.
You have to find out for sure if it is possible to separate yourself from the present happening - not rely on hearsay.

You assume that evidence of concept wasn't given to me by these people. My acceptance of the possible explanation of the situation was logical, considering other possibilities were not.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
No winners in logic, only losers I'm afraid. Something either is logical or someone is wrong. That's the best thing about deductive reasoning, only the person making the claim is actually putting themselves out there. Like this idea of Intelligent Causation. If someone thinks it happened, they can make the case based on logic, and if it sticks, there really isn't much defense, until the known nature of the Universe itself changes, which has been known to happen.

Logically - have you ever not been here and now?
Has anything other than the present moment ever been available to you?
Is there a you separate from the present moment?
Can anything really be separated from the present?

Precognition is not one of my abilities, but I have been in the company of others that have seemingly demonstrated such abilities.

So instead of staying with what you can verify for yourself you refer to other people who know different. That is knowledge and belief.
You have to find out for sure if it is possible to separate yourself from the present happening - not rely on hearsay.

You assume that evidence of concept wasn't given to me by these people. My acceptance of the possible explanation of the situation was logical, considering other possibilities were not.

So can you explain logically to me how you can separate yourself from the present happening?

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

I was taking the statements as-is without including them into the larger framework.

Exactly!

In this regard, simply stating God is Timeless assumes the initial point that God exists.

The question itself assumes god exists! "Who created the creator?".

When taken into the thread at large, "The Universe was created by God because God is Timeless and existed before the Universe" -is- circular reasoning, to be assured.

Yes you have taken it out of context. That was not the question and why your application of begging the question in this case is actually a strawman.

edit on 29-5-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

It wasn't taken out of context, it was taken as-is. He provided a self contained thought away from his original idea. Had I merely cherry picked this idea out of the general structure I would agree with you that it wasn't Begging the Question. I -will- agree that it was also a strawman, because it was.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
No winners in logic, only losers I'm afraid. Something either is logical or someone is wrong. That's the best thing about deductive reasoning, only the person making the claim is actually putting themselves out there. Like this idea of Intelligent Causation. If someone thinks it happened, they can make the case based on logic, and if it sticks, there really isn't much defense, until the known nature of the Universe itself changes, which has been known to happen.

Logically - have you ever not been here and now?
Has anything other than the present moment ever been available to you?
Is there a you separate from the present moment?
Can anything really be separated from the present?

Precognition is not one of my abilities, but I have been in the company of others that have seemingly demonstrated such abilities.

So instead of staying with what you can verify for yourself you refer to other people who know different. That is knowledge and belief.
You have to find out for sure if it is possible to separate yourself from the present happening - not rely on hearsay.

You assume that evidence of concept wasn't given to me by these people. My acceptance of the possible explanation of the situation was logical, considering other possibilities were not.

So can you explain logically to me how you can separate yourself from the present happening?

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Any direct knowledge of events that will happen that have yet to transpire are, by its very definition, separation from the present happening.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
No winners in logic, only losers I'm afraid. Something either is logical or someone is wrong. That's the best thing about deductive reasoning, only the person making the claim is actually putting themselves out there. Like this idea of Intelligent Causation. If someone thinks it happened, they can make the case based on logic, and if it sticks, there really isn't much defense, until the known nature of the Universe itself changes, which has been known to happen.

Logically - have you ever not been here and now?
Has anything other than the present moment ever been available to you?
Is there a you separate from the present moment?
Can anything really be separated from the present?

Precognition is not one of my abilities, but I have been in the company of others that have seemingly demonstrated such abilities.

So instead of staying with what you can verify for yourself you refer to other people who know different. That is knowledge and belief.
You have to find out for sure if it is possible to separate yourself from the present happening - not rely on hearsay.

You assume that evidence of concept wasn't given to me by these people. My acceptance of the possible explanation of the situation was logical, considering other possibilities were not.

So can you explain logically to me how you can separate yourself from the present happening?

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Any direct knowledge of events that will happen that have yet to transpire are, by its very definition, separation from the present happening.

Knowledge of so called 'future event' is acquired presently. It, whatever it is, will not happen until it is happening. All arising's arise in presence.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
No winners in logic, only losers I'm afraid. Something either is logical or someone is wrong. That's the best thing about deductive reasoning, only the person making the claim is actually putting themselves out there. Like this idea of Intelligent Causation. If someone thinks it happened, they can make the case based on logic, and if it sticks, there really isn't much defense, until the known nature of the Universe itself changes, which has been known to happen.

Logically - have you ever not been here and now?
Has anything other than the present moment ever been available to you?
Is there a you separate from the present moment?
Can anything really be separated from the present?

Precognition is not one of my abilities, but I have been in the company of others that have seemingly demonstrated such abilities.

So instead of staying with what you can verify for yourself you refer to other people who know different. That is knowledge and belief.
You have to find out for sure if it is possible to separate yourself from the present happening - not rely on hearsay.

You assume that evidence of concept wasn't given to me by these people. My acceptance of the possible explanation of the situation was logical, considering other possibilities were not.

So can you explain logically to me how you can separate yourself from the present happening?

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Any direct knowledge of events that will happen that have yet to transpire are, by its very definition, separation from the present happening.

Knowledge of so called 'future event' is acquired presently. It, whatever it is, will not happen until it is happening. All arising's arise in presence.

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

The acquisition of the knowledge isn't the separation. The knowledge itself is the separation. You cannot have that knowledge without access to something not in the present.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

The acquisition of the knowledge isn't the separation. The knowledge itself is the separation. You cannot have that knowledge without access to something not in the present.

edit on 29-5-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)

Words like 'tomorrow' make believe there is some where, some when else. But words always arise presently.
There is only ever what is happening, it happens that words appear but the words are believed (without question) to be talking about something that does not exist.

If you were to realize that this (whatever it is) is all there is but just appears different - you would not believe in the beginning or end of what you are or what this is. It always is but it always looks different.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

It wasn't taken out of context, it was taken as-is. He provided a self contained thought away from his original idea. Had I merely cherry picked this idea out of the general structure I would agree with you that it wasn't Begging the Question. I -will- agree that it was also a strawman, because it was.

This is misdirection. You did cherry pick.

I was taking the statements as-is without including them into the larger framework.

You then make another strawman.

He provided a self contained thought away from his original idea.

No, he was answering a question it was not self contained. And yet you apply begging the question as it relates to the original hypothesis but then call what you are addressing a separate idea. That is illogical.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

The acquisition of the knowledge isn't the separation. The knowledge itself is the separation. You cannot have that knowledge without access to something not in the present.

edit on 29-5-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)

Words like 'tomorrow' make believe there is some where, some when else. But words always arise presently.
There is only ever what is happening, it happens that words appear but the words are believed (without question) to be talking about something that does not exist.

If you were to realize that this (whatever it is) is all there is but just appears different - you would not believe in the beginning or end of what you are or what this is. It always is but it always looks different.

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Tomorrow is a definable concept. A day is a definable concept, it is a full rotation on the Earth's axis. Tomorrow is the rotation after the current rotation. This next rotation either happens or it doesn't. Tomorrow either happens or it doesn't. This concept is independent of superstition.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

The acquisition of the knowledge isn't the separation. The knowledge itself is the separation. You cannot have that knowledge without access to something not in the present.

edit on 29-5-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)

Words like 'tomorrow' make believe there is some where, some when else. But words always arise presently.
There is only ever what is happening, it happens that words appear but the words are believed (without question) to be talking about something that does not exist.

If you were to realize that this (whatever it is) is all there is but just appears different - you would not believe in the beginning or end of what you are or what this is. It always is but it always looks different.

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Tomorrow is a definable concept. A day is a definable concept, it is a full rotation on the Earth's axis. Tomorrow is the rotation after the current rotation. This next rotation either happens or it doesn't. Tomorrow either happens or it doesn't. This concept is independent of superstition.

Yes, they are concepts, words. When and where do words appear?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

The acquisition of the knowledge isn't the separation. The knowledge itself is the separation. You cannot have that knowledge without access to something not in the present.

edit on 29-5-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)

Words like 'tomorrow' make believe there is some where, some when else. But words always arise presently.
There is only ever what is happening, it happens that words appear but the words are believed (without question) to be talking about something that does not exist.

If you were to realize that this (whatever it is) is all there is but just appears different - you would not believe in the beginning or end of what you are or what this is. It always is but it always looks different.

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Tomorrow is a definable concept. A day is a definable concept, it is a full rotation on the Earth's axis. Tomorrow is the rotation after the current rotation. This next rotation either happens or it doesn't. Tomorrow either happens or it doesn't. This concept is independent of superstition.

Yes, they are concepts, words. When and where do words appear?

No, you claimed words like 'tomorrow' make believe there is a somewhere and somewhen else. I corrected your misconception. Your reply isn't apropos of anything in my statement.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

The acquisition of the knowledge isn't the separation. The knowledge itself is the separation. You cannot have that knowledge without access to something not in the present.

edit on 29-5-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)

Words like 'tomorrow' make believe there is some where, some when else. But words always arise presently.
There is only ever what is happening, it happens that words appear but the words are believed (without question) to be talking about something that does not exist.

If you were to realize that this (whatever it is) is all there is but just appears different - you would not believe in the beginning or end of what you are or what this is. It always is but it always looks different.

edit on 29-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Tomorrow is a definable concept. A day is a definable concept, it is a full rotation on the Earth's axis. Tomorrow is the rotation after the current rotation. This next rotation either happens or it doesn't. Tomorrow either happens or it doesn't. This concept is independent of superstition.

Yes, they are concepts, words. When and where do words appear?

No, you claimed words like 'tomorrow' make believe there is a somewhere and somewhen else. I corrected your misconception. Your reply isn't apropos of anything in my statement.

Do you believe there is an actual solid thing called 'tomorrow'? Do you know what a concept is?
Have you ever seen 'tomorrow'?

If there was a 'tomorrow' you would not stop worrying about it.

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

It wasn't taken out of context, it was taken as-is. He provided a self contained thought away from his original idea. Had I merely cherry picked this idea out of the general structure I would agree with you that it wasn't Begging the Question. I -will- agree that it was also a strawman, because it was.

This is misdirection. You did cherry pick.

I was taking the statements as-is without including them into the larger framework.

You then make another strawman.

He provided a self contained thought away from his original idea.

No, he was answering a question it was not self contained. And yet you apply begging the question as it relates to the original hypothesis but then call what you are addressing a separate idea. That is illogical.

edit on 29-5-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here ignorant_ape poses two questions, one is not relevant to this but the other is.

when are you actually going to logically explain the orignis of your alledged god ?

Notice the framing of this question. Harry answers the question by posting his response, he isn't answering it in the body of his response, as the question is clearly that of timeframe, not content. The content is not drawing on anything else in the thread. Harry's purpose in posting this was to independently validate the origins of he alleged God. Which he tries to do, and fails, independently of anything else in this thread.

Cherry picking didn't happen because he is the one that made his logic concise and independent.

In his post he made the assumptions that no time existed before the Universe, the the Universe has a begining, and that God existed. This is definitive "Begging the Question" as he is assuming points he has not actually proven.

Before the universe there was no time
God was before the universe
Therefore, god was before time
If something is before time it is timeless
If something is timeless is does not and can not have a beginning or an end
Therefore, god did not begin
If god did not begin that mean it has no origin

If you see it another way, I would love a clearer picture of what you are saying.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


If you would like to have a discussion about this, please make another thread, and I would be happy to join in. We are getting very fair from the topic here.

If you are trying to wrap this into the greater understanding of an Intelligent Causation, I would be happy to read that post as well.

reply to post by soyentist

Originally posted by soyentist

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by winofiend

 

And like the argument above, this adds no value to our understanding of the universe.

I don't believe you're being fair to yourself by completely ruling out any possibilities that don't fit into your belief system. Fact is, 96% of the universe is made up of dark matter and energy which is just as mysterious and unknown today as it was the first day we discovered it. You say the universe works perfectly the way it is, but we hardly know anything about it. So how can you be right? How can you be content with our current understanding of it? It's that linear type of thinking that will get us no where.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

If you are trying to wrap this into the greater understanding of an Intelligent Causation, I would be happy to read that post as well.

Nothing caused nothing - nothing has always been - it is the source.

reply to post by ABeing


And this is the key to it all. Very well said.

I for one share your approach.

The problem with modern science sometimes is the reluctance to move beyond the material world around us. It focuses so much on the "observable" that it completely ignores or dismisses the unobservable. If it can't be explained by complex formulas and mathematics then it doesn't exist.

I feel bad for people who wear those blinders