Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

Dear MichaelPMaccabee,

Thanks for the comment. I do find your use of it as a support for the argument of chance rather odd, though.

Men have many superstitious beliefs, but not a single one, understand this point because it is important, not a single one, has ever been proven to be correct.

As has been pointed out, on this subject there will never be proof one way or the other.

Indeed, the argument may be reversed. Scientists have had many different beliefs concerning the structure and origins of the universe, but not a single one has ever been proven to be correct. When the truth of a scientific theory is known, the theory always fails.

There is a second reason why I think that our history as "superstitious" people is a thin and weak reed on which to rely for support. As you point out, our whole history as a species is marked by a hunger, a restless search, for God. Why?

Where did we get the idea of God? Why do we, for thousands of years, strive to know more about Him? Because He doesn't exist? That doesn't make much sense to me.

And a very pleasant good evening to you, as well.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


The creation of God is simply a reaction we have to the unknown we know we need an explanation of why its happening but we haven't a clue. So the natural response put someone in charge and say thats why they wanted it that way.Using God as an excuse gives as satisfaction it makes the world make sense at least for that moment. Lets look where science is leading us we just got confirmation there is a multiverse so know we know there are other universes. And if we follow this down the rabbit hole then whats creating them and why? And if other universes are being created then what are they created in how can space time be infinite. This one is very easy to say god did it because how can you have an expanse with no end but had a beginning? Just because we dont know why something happens doesn't mean god did it. It just means we have more stuff to figure out. And i think that a lot of things we assume are difficult a thousand years from now theyll read our theories and laugh.

And the whole time theyll sit there and go cant believe they didnt understand how the multiverse works its so simple a child could grasp it. Much in the same way we look back on greek and roman sciences and go my god how could they not figure this out. We have a fear of the unknown but at the same time we have a hunger for knowledge. God makes some feel better about the world around them. As long as theres things we dont know there will all ways be a god if we figure it all out we become a god either way in the end who knows.

reply to post by charles1952


The creation of God is simply a reaction we have to the unknown we know we need an explanation of why its happening but we haven't a clue. So the natural response put someone in charge and say thats why they wanted it that way.Using God as an excuse gives as satisfaction it makes the world make sense at least for that moment. Lets look where science is leading us we just got confirmation there is a multiverse so know we know there are other universes. And if we follow this down the rabbit hole then whats creating them and why? And if other universes are being created then what are they created in how can space time be infinite. This one is very easy to say god did it because how can you have an expanse with no end but had a beginning? Just because we dont know why something happens doesn't mean god did it. It just means we have more stuff to figure out. And i think that a lot of things we assume are difficult a thousand years from now theyll read our theories and laugh.

And the whole time theyll sit there and go cant believe they didnt understand how the multiverse works its so simple a child could grasp it. Much in the same way we look back on greek and roman sciences and go my god how could they not figure this out. We have a fear of the unknown but at the same time we have a hunger for knowledge. God makes some feel better about the world around them. As long as theres things we dont know there will all ways be a god if we figure it all out we become a god either way in the end who knows.

reply to post by dragonridr

Dear dragonridr,

Thank you, I hadn't seriously considered multiverse before. I am surprised to hear that we now have confirmation of it's existence. I hadn't heard that. Was it something from that CERN collider? Could you point me toward it?

The creation of God is simply a reaction we have to the unknown we know we need an explanation of why its happening but we haven't a clue. So the natural response put someone in charge and say thats why they wanted it that way.

If you could help me with that idea too, I'd be grateful. I have no idea how my car works, and I don't care to find out. I don't know why it rains, or why there are rainbows, or how birds migrate. But I don't care how, it's enough for me to know that it does.

And if we follow this down the rabbit hole then whats creating them and why?

Why? How can chance have a why?

It just means we have more stuff to figure out. And i think that a lot of things we assume are difficult a thousand years from now theyll read our theories and laugh.

Based on what we know now there are two choices. Multiverse theory which may prove to be reasonable at some point in the future, and if so, will be one of two possibilities, or Intelligent design did it.

I have to work with what I know now. I can't make a decision 1000 years from now. We make decisions with incomplete information all the time, we'll just have to do it again.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Where did we get the idea of God? Why do we, for thousands of years, strive to know more about Him? Because He doesn't exist? That doesn't make much sense to me.

I know, its quite a horrible thing to think about.. all the wasted time and lives. How many people have wasted the majority of their existence worshiping and worrying about something that was all imaginary the whole time.

It cannot be helped. The crutches of superstition will fall away and those who cannot stand will fall. Many people will kill themselves when they finally choke on this horse pill.

reply to post by Wertdagf

Dear Wertdagf,

If you said something other than "God does not exist," in your most recent post, I missed it. Whence (I always like to use that word) comes the idea of God in the first place? Why should not man think he is the supreme creature on earth (which he is) with no other being needed? Oh well, forget it, I'm drifting off the subject.

We have your assertion that there was no intelligent designer. What supports that position other than modern man's fear of miracles and supernatural forces?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Who is afraid of the very thing that attracts you to such beliefs?

I have always said that I would prefer a world with a god. Its a great Idea... one I intend on making reality should my life be long enough.

reply to post by Wertdagf

Dear Wertdagf,

I must be short on coffee, I'm getting fuzzy. Thanks a lot for your patience with me.

Who is afraid of the very thing that attracts you to such beliefs?

I thought I was saying that the multiverse theory is the only potential candidate for a "scientific" explanation of the "fine-tuning problem." It seems to me that physicists are saying "Oh, no, we can't allow for the possibility of an intelligent designer. We must try to come up with something else."

It's as if the physicists were afraid to admit miracles into their neatly ordered, but unexplained, universe.

With repect,
Charles1952

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

what are we going to do about the very real possibility that this isn't the first Big Bang that happened? Merely going on Hawking's estimations, can we rule out that what he estimated has actually happened before the universe as we know it took shape?

The Hindus already explained the Great Inbreath and Outbreath in the formation of universes without end in cyclic succession in the Puranas and the Vedas. Just because the Big Bang may not be the first time it Banged doesn't mean it wasn't the same creative force that made it happen. Interestingly in the Hindu cosmology, the figures for the length of the time of the Universe correspond pretty closely to science.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Thank you, nice post. We needed a little shake up to get a different perspective. Well done.

By the way, how come you don't have a border, at least a silver one? You've got great numbers and are a solid contributor. I'd demand a border and a plate of cookies.

Originally posted by squiz
Nonsense, science does not hold to absolute proofs. Cosmology, particle physics, math, abiogenesis and yes the mechanisms for evolution as well. All hypothesis. Your fundamentalist view is known as scientism no different to religious fundamentalism in essence, a belief structure. Scientific history is the story of mistakes being updated as old hypothesis are falsified.

Fundamentalist view? Come on now. You are the one acting like it's all or nothing. Sorry, that's not how science works. Some things are backed up by fact, some things are educated guesses being experimented on. You are making a feeble attempt to lump together the 2 concepts when they are much different in regards to science. It's laughable that you even try to justify it.

en.wikipedia.org...

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.[1] A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[2]

No, a hypothesis is NOT the same as a theory. Keywords in bold, plus "still has to be rigorously tested", rather than "already has been rigorously tested". Claiming those 2 concepts are the same is simple ignorance of science, no matter how you slice it.

Or you could address the issues of this thread without the cut and paste arguments then by all means go ahead. I agree there are many unknowns especially with cosmology but just hand waving with an appeal to the unknown is in fact a science of the gaps argument. Science does not work that way. You claim we don't know enough and I agree but then you yourself make a counter based purely on ignorance. Geez take the blinders off. Did I mention I am not religious? Never even read the bible.

You are too funny. Cut and paste arguments? Sorry, but my wiki link above clearly explains the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis, which you still fail to grasp after all this time. Let me guess, it's wrong because I copied it from wikipedia? You are attempting to lump hypothesis and theory together in a poor attempt to demean and diminish the value and accuracy of physical science, yet you instantly jump on the bandwagon for any potential ID concepts in theoretical physics and computer information theory (fields not based on objective physical evidence or the scientific method). Anyone see a problem with this picture besides me? Enough of the generalizations.

Also, I have not once appealed to the unknown to form an argument. Never. I have merely pointed out this fallacious appeal that many ID advocates, such as the OP, make almost on a daily basis in here. Don't falsely accuse me of fallacious reasoning or intellectual dishonesty. I didn't say ID was definitely wrong because we don't know. I'm saying the evidence that the OP, and others that support his view have brought up, is not objective.

phys.org...

Just thought you may be interested. Pretty cool hey? Materialism is falsified by experiment.

Where in that link does it say that materialism(universe arising naturally) is falsified? This is a prime example of forcing your own ridiculous conclusion to a study that has nothing to do with it. You do this all the time, I'm just surprised more people don't call you out on it and instead give stars. It boggles the mind and really makes me wonder if they even read or understood what you are talking about. Disguising a half truth, or exaggeration in between 2 scientific facts does not suddenly make it true.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Thank you, nice post. We needed a little shake up to get a different perspective. Well done.

By the way, how come you don't have a border, at least a silver one? You've got great numbers and are a solid contributor. I'd demand a border and a plate of cookies.

haha Thanks, I love to shake things up.

I do get points taken away for bad behavior though. Sometimes I rattle the cage a little too hard

reply to post by Barcs

And yet out of all my questions you just cherry pick the insignificant difference between hypothesis an theory which is nothing but semantics. I will accept the difference, but what has it changed? Nothing. You have just proven my point. I agree with rigorous testing, show me some. As i said inference is the same methodology Darwin applied, an inference to known causes in effect in the here and now. Without inference we would be without the majority of modern science.

I disagree, you constantly make appeals to the unknown as a defense, you did it in your very first post here. I base my position on what is known but am very aware of the many unknowns. Let us see if you can refrain from appealing to the unknown shall we?

Acording to your wiki quote evolutionary biology is still a hypothesis then, Scientific hypothesis must also present the null hypothesis that would falsify it.

I am a empiricist. You misrepresent my position. Your dismisall of other scientific disciplines is evidence of your fundamentalist view. I base my conclusions on experimental evidence. Under this definition your view is still just another hypothesis consisting of nothing but just so stories devoid of empirical evidence to support the conclusion. Whatever that is.

Show me the empirical evidence for the multiverse.
Show me the empirical evidence for all the things I listed.
Show me the empirical evidence producing consciousness.
Especially show me the empirical evidence for the mechanisms producing semiosis and show me how unguided natural forces can produce digital code empirically.
Show me the empirical evidence for the emergence of even one novel protein.
Yes your hypothesis fails to acount for the very fundamental properties of life and the modern synthesis.

Show me some rigorous testing please.

So you are a materialist then? Quantum mechanics put materialism to rest almost a hundred years ago. What is the material mechanism for entanglement? What is the materialistic mechanism for all the things I mentioned.

I only wish to discuss science, except everytime I do the response is not scientific but a philosophical position. You would say theology has no place in science. Yet it is the materialists who keep dragging it into the picture.

Yes by all means let us discuss empirical evidence. Rather than derail this thread. Make another based on what I have mentioned, I will eagerly participate.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus



Very nice. Many of the greatest scientific minds were highy influenced by the vedanta.

reply to post by squiz

Show me the empirical evidence producing consciousness.

You said it all right there, IMHO.
Very good.

I would like to be a little more specific to your post Barcs, please try to refrain from the subtle ad Homs it is a sign of a weak argument and the major problem with this forum.

Originally posted by Barcs
Fundamentalist view?

Come on now. You are the one acting like it's all or nothing. Sorry, that's not how science works. Some things are backed up by fact, some things are educated guesses being experimented on. You are making a feeble attempt to lump together the 2 concepts when they are much different in regards to science. It's laughable that you even try to justify it.

Straw man, I am not saying all or nothing. Science does not deal in absolute proofs. Even the basic laws of geometry rely on things that are obviously true but can't be proven. We can only show they are reasonable and in fact absolutely necessary. As Kurt Godel clearly demonstrated with his incompleteness theory.

but my wiki link above clearly explains the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis,

I will agree with that definition, do you think science deals in absolute proofs? Every theory will always have more things that are true that can be proven. Once again as Godel clearly demonstrated. Evolutionary theory has not been "rigorously tested" not by a long shot, unless you say just so stories are rigorous testing. I have not commented much on theoretical physics, when I have e.g.. Time and space, I explicitly said I was speculating. Information theory not based in science? Seriously? Actually it is different to the broader information science. Without it you would not have computers or pretty much any advanced technology. You also should know it is used in biology as well and biology is now being interpreted in terms of information. The discovery of the nature of DNA heralded the information revolution in biology. In fact it is interchangeable with our own methods of information transfer. The parent of Craig Venter's synthetic cell was in fact a computer network. Not based in the scientific method?

"All living cells that we know of on this planet are 'DNA software'-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions," said Venter. "We are now using computer software to design new DNA software."

The digital and biological worlds are becoming interchangeable, he added, describing how scientists now simply send each other the information to make DIY biological material rather than sending the material itself.
- Craig Venter

www.newscientist.com...

The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an information science.

www.nature.com...
med.stanford.edu...
www.pnas.org...
cacm.acm.org...
Just a small sample, I could bury you in references.

“the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”
-Richard Dawkins

I think the reason you dismiss it is because the emergence of code and functional information points directly to an intelligent cause. The is no known material mechanism for semiosis in fact I submit it is impossible on the simple fact that there is no force connecting sign and interpretation, and the type of information is non physical.

Also, I have not once appealed to the unknown to form an argument. Never. I have merely pointed out this fallacious appeal that many ID advocates, such as the OP, make almost on a daily basis in here. Don't falsely accuse me of fallacious reasoning or intellectual dishonesty. I didn't say ID was definitely wrong because we don't know. I'm saying the evidence that the OP, and others that support his view have brought up, is not objective.

Your evidence for your preferred "hypothesis" is not objective not even close. Inference to things in the distant past or separated by vast cosmological distances or the unseen particles such as the higgs are part and parcel of the scientific method. No one has seen the higgs you know.

Where in that link does it say that materialism(universe arising naturally) is falsified?

Explain it in materialistic terms please. How on earth can particles be entangled without co-existing in time? How can bucky balls be subject to quantum effects? What material force can account for entanglement and quantum teleportation. These things are real not theoretical

Originally posted by Barcs
Here we go again with the appeals to ignorance. We don't know what caused the universe, yet. Any assumptions past that are guesses and nothing more. We know that everything was very close together originally and then it spread out. Fine tune argument is old as dirt and the goalposts have been constantly moved with it as we learn more and more about how things work. We are tuned to the universal forces, they are not tuned to us. 99.999% of the universe is instantly lethal to life. If the forces were different, there might be a different type of life that arises. Stop appealing to the unknown as evidence. The forces are what they are. Maybe one day we'll understand exactly what causes each one. For now, why is it so difficult for people to say "I don't know"?

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

How is this not an appeal to the unknown? I count six, plus denial and some unsubstantiated claims as well. I am not appealing to the unknown, I am inferring from what is known.
You came in late, see my posts on page 15. And to get back on subject.

With the discovery of only one particle, the LHC experiments deepened a profound problem in physics that had been brewing for decades. Modern equations seem to capture reality with breathtaking accuracy, correctly predicting the values of many constants of nature and the existence of particles like the Higgs. Yet a few constants — including the mass of the Higgs boson — are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations.

Dr. Dennis Scania

"If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop. "

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:

"If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all. "

"If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely."

Dr. Paul Davies

"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'."

Fred Hoyle

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.

Stephen Hawking

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."

Professor Steven Weinberg

"how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values."

Michael Turner

"The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side. "

Roger Penrose

"namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.) "

"Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.

reply to post by squiz


Those quotes are brilliant.

I'll just go ahead and state what each of those quotes seem to be inferring:

That the Universe is intelligent, and for that matter, intelligently designed.

And I will take this notion a step further by stating that the Universe is indeed self aware and conscious.

What proves it?

The mere fact that we exist to observe it in all of its immensity and wonder.

Commence flaming

reply to post by squiz


A very interesting article indeed, thanks for sharing.

The mystery deepens the further we look down into the rabbit hole it seems. How does one even begin to wrap his mind around the idea that 2 particles can become entangled across time?

Brings a whole new meaning to "Photoneffect", eh?

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Dear MichaelPMaccabee,

Thanks for the comment. I do find your use of it as a support for the argument of chance rather odd, though.

Men have many superstitious beliefs, but not a single one, understand this point because it is important, not a single one, has ever been proven to be correct.

As has been pointed out, on this subject there will never be proof one way or the other.

You underestimate the deductive power of humans. I do not put such a limitation on what we can know, the only limit I will put on what we can deduce is what we -currently- know.

Indeed, the argument may be reversed. Scientists have had many different beliefs concerning the structure and origins of the universe, but not a single one has ever been proven to be correct. When the truth of a scientific theory is known, the theory always fails.

Yes, and that is the beauty of Science over Superstition. When a theory fails, it fails to advancing Science, and -never- reverts to Superstition.

There is a second reason why I think that our history as "superstitious" people is a thin and weak reed on which to rely for support. As you point out, our whole history as a species is marked by a hunger, a restless search, for God. Why?

Where did we get the idea of God? Why do we, for thousands of years, strive to know more about Him? Because He doesn't exist? That doesn't make much sense to me.

And a very pleasant good evening to you, as well.

With respect,
Charles1952

The question as to why do men continue to hold to superstitious beliefs when they are consistently shot down, and not one has ever been confirmed as valid baffles me as well.