Intelligent first cause: WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE

Originally posted by MrConspiracy
Interesting post. I do not believe this is all an accident, and yes i do believe SOMETHING needs to exist to allow another SOMETHING to come in to existence.

I believe in God, i do. But am i nowhere near narrow minded enough to not allow other trains of thought. For example, in the comments someone mentioned this being a simulation. Although scary, i feel the idea itself is a probability. Look at this example.

Have you ever heard of something you didn't know about before... You go home and you hear about that previously unknown "thing" on the news, internet, newspaper.. wherever! All of a sudden your newly learnt piece of info is mentioned here there and everywhere. How did you miss it before? Is it just a coincidence? For me, that would give credence to the "simulation" idea. Or perhaps the idea that we're in someone imagination. That it's a train of thought process that we are playing out.

We hear new info (perhaps a thought of the person? thing's? imagination we are part of) and all of a sudden we see it everywhere because the "brain" is thinking about it.

If you're lost at my post i 100% understand. I just blurted out my ideas without any thought... Haha

It's a pretty good and honest blurt. I am not that narrow minded either. I am open to examine the weird things, like the eerie feeling you get when you think someone is watching you. And then you look around and find that person looking at you. How does this information enter the mind? Is someone sitting at a great computer and typing this info into your simulated brain? lol I just don't know.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Then answer the question of what fills in the space behind you as you move through this absolute nothingness? If you dig a hole in the ground, aren't you actually replacing that dirt with air? One scoop of dirt comes out, one scoop of air goes in. If you could try this same exercise in a realm of absolute nothing, if you tried digging a hole, it would be One scoop of dirt comes out and One scoop of WHAT goes in?

If all that existed was infinite nothingness pure vacuum for ever... and you and I popped into it, and I had a ball in my hand, and threw the ball towards you, wouldnt that ball be moving?

This problem you have with movement and relativity, is the idea of relative motion and velocity and time etc.

reply to post by jiggerj

Then answer the question of what fills in the space behind you as you move through this absolute nothingness? If you dig a hole in the ground, aren't you actually replacing that dirt with air? One scoop of dirt comes out, one scoop of air goes in. If you could try this same exercise in a realm of absolute nothing, if you tried digging a hole, it would be One scoop of dirt comes out and One scoop of WHAT goes in?

You are actually not removing anything in a absoloute empty infinit space. If you have a sealed box and trap some of the vacuum space inside it and move the box 1 meter. You havent moved anything accept the box. Because the box can not have a greater vacuum than the absolute vacuum outside it. So you cant trap and move the vacuum space. The absolute vacuum must be in the box before you open it. So you will never be able to trap anything new in the box and move it around. Because the box is equally empty as the space surrounding it.

Originally posted by ImaFungi


If all that existed was infinite nothingness pure vacuum for ever... and you and I popped into it, and I had a ball in my hand, and threw the ball towards you, wouldnt that ball be moving?

This problem you have with movement and relativity, is the idea of relative motion and velocity and time etc.

Not at all. It's all about displacement and replacement. An object cannot move into a space that ISN'T occupied by something (air, water, whatever).

And, an object cannot be removed from a space without something replacing it.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by ImaFungi


If all that existed was infinite nothingness pure vacuum for ever... and you and I popped into it, and I had a ball in my hand, and threw the ball towards you, wouldnt that ball be moving?

This problem you have with movement and relativity, is the idea of relative motion and velocity and time etc.

Not at all. It's all about displacement and replacement. An object cannot move into a space that ISN'T occupied by something (air, water, whatever).

And, an object cannot be removed from a space without something replacing it.

reply to post by spy66

The only way you are going to be able to beam that box to an from a absolute empty space, is if that box is absolutely empty and surrounded by a absolute empty space when you beam it away. If not the box will not be a box when it returns. So, basically it is not possible to do your idea.

AHHHHH! Stop focusing on the box. You're obsessed with the box! Forget that it can't be done. You are now on the witness stand. Now, tell us, Mr. Spy, what filled in the space that the box previously occupied in a region of nothingness? SAY IT SAY IT SAY IT!

Originally posted by jiggerj
What I am about to describe flies in the face of both, the religious belief that a god created the universe, and the scientific belief that the Big Bang started from nothing.

1.) An orthodox religious belief is that God created the Universe ex nihilo, or from nothing. This seems like an absurdity at first glance, that (a)God existed to create the Universe, and (b) that nothing existed from whence the Universe came to exist. A more careful look at the seeming contradiction will reveal that the confusion is a matter of semantics. What is meant by the premise "God created the Universe ex nihilo" is that an infinitely powerful and efficacious God created the Universe from no other substance, and by no other power, than Himself.

Take John 1:1 for instance:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

2.) The scientific theory of the Big Bang is that the Universe was actually once a singularity of quasi infinite mass (substance) and potential (power). This singularity would have been 'smaller' than the Planck scale. For all intents and purposes the theory is that this singularity which represents everything in the physical Universe, essentially appeared out of thin air. The absurdity of this premise is self-evident as "from nothing comes nothing". You have agreed to this premise, whether you realize it or not, in your own argument, and by doing so you confirm that there must have been some infinitely powerful and efficacious first cause through Whom the entire Universe came to exist. We call this First Cause God!

Moving on rapidly:

The questions of our origins, where we came from, who we are, and who we are meant to be, as well as questions pertaining to the existence and nature of God are Universally found back as far as recorded history itself. The innate yearning to seek out answers to these questions is seemingly as important as any of our other drives, of those to meet our immediate material needs, to survive and thrive, because even when our other hungers are fulfilled these curiosities remained. This leads me to believe that perhaps the answer to these questions transcends our immediate 'material' needs, and beyond our material nature into a higher realm of the spirit, mind, and soul.

Seek and you shall find. Proofs for the existence of the immaterial soul go back thousands of years, and the more science learns about the Universe and the Human Person the more it becomes glaringly obvious that there is a Masterful Creator behind it all. The pursuit to answer the question of 'Who' that Masterful Creator is, what He is like, and what our relationship is to Him would lead you into less fundamental questions of Philosophy and Religion, which you could spend a lifetime contemplating and discussing. Some important questions that arise: Does God exist? If God exists how could we know? It has been argued that the only way Man could know if God exists was if God has revealed Himself to mankind. What revelations from God would suffice to establish at the very least His existence? Has God revealed Himself to mankind in the present, and throughout History? I would argue emphatically-Yes!

I propose a brief excerpt from Psalm 19 as a suitable answer, if you would consider:

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.

This is interesting in light of the notion that we came from the stars because it suggests that even the stars point to God as our origins, for Who created the stars in all their glory and beauty? Certainly the one who created the visible Universe and all its beauty, wonder, glory, and awe must be infinitely more beautiful, wonderful, glorious, and awesome!

And while less 'flowery' in their poetry, and convicting in the reality of their truth I offer you the words of St. Paul from his Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 1:

...since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

(This last line sounds like the theory of naturalistic evolution to me...)

reply to post by jiggerj


Its not about displacement and replacement if you are using the hypothetical scenario of an infinite nothingness perfect absolute vacuum. Which is hard to imagine and discuss because it might not be possible. So now when you bring up displacement and replacement you are using it with the knowledge of every action having a reaction, energy not being created or destroyed but transferred, and the universe as a whole system being one of give and take.

So if you reread my earlier reply if NOTHINGNESS, ABSOLUTE VACUUM, no energy, no matter, no particles, no no no no anything existed and was all that existed... relative motion could still be determined. if you had one solitary marble or particle, and shot it through infinite nothingness, or if it would be standing stationary, I dont know if it would be able to feel any affect. This also has to do with perspective. If a particle is in infinite pure absolute nothingness vacuum and is spinning or has angular momentum, which direction is it spinning? Looking down on it, it may appear to be spinning clockwise, while looking up from the bottem at it, it would appear to be spinning counter clockwise.

So I personally dont think an infinite absolute perfect nothingness vacuum exists or ever does... Maybe there is some anti spatial vacuum dimension that is the backdrop for all material events in time idk...

So now that we exist in this universe, made of countless particles of various sizes and energy values, traveling at different velocities with different spins... they all interact with one another determined by their recent physical history/trajectories and local physical circumstances.. I think one of the biggest mysteries in science (besides everything) is 'space'.. What is it where there are no atoms and particles, that area we came up with the term vacuum for, what actually is that, how is that, why is that?

Its kinda like the theory of the big bang states that all the energetic material that turned into atoms then stars and planets, was all in one place, and then began to separate into those galactic clumps;galaxies. The idea it seems is that the action of galaxies being formed also created/allowed the space between galaxies to form and grow, and as galaxies went off in space and time, the space between galaxies increased (this activity is called 'dark energy')... If you look at your displacement replacement cause and effect stuff, its hard to tell what causes what, or if there is some ying yang business going on, where in tandem they each cause each other.. Galaxies forming causes the space inbetween them to expand and thin out/stretch out in terms of energy, giving the impression that those areas are void of energy/matter, thus vacuum... and the yang, that the space expanding allows galaxies to form and stay as stable units.

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by spy66

 

The only way you are going to be able to beam that box to an from a absolute empty space, is if that box is absolutely empty and surrounded by a absolute empty space when you beam it away. If not the box will not be a box when it returns. So, basically it is not possible to do your idea.

AHHHHH!

Stop focusing on the box. You're obsessed with the box! Forget that it can't be done. You are now on the witness stand. Now, tell us, Mr. Spy, what filled in the space that the box previously occupied in a region of nothingness? SAY IT SAY IT SAY IT!

I am not fokusing on the box, but the atmosphere of the space the box it is in before you send it. If you send it from the space within our universe. The box will not be absolut empty.

Before you send the box you must fist equalize the pressure inside the box to be absolute vacuum. If not the box will not take the presure differential very well. And to do that succesfully you would probably have to equalize the pressure surrounding the box as well. The box must be in a absolute vacuum before you send it.

Sound vibration is what brings matter to life.

reply to post by spy66


Why does the change have to be intelligent? Suppose you are looking at an empty expanse of ground, then plop something hits that ground... was it intelligence or just gravity.

If there is a creator at work all logic and rationality would say it's a force or combination of forces not an intelligence.

Creating the concept of god(s) was just the easiest way to 1. Answer an impossible question... and 2. To control people.

Im not sure the OP understands what a perfect vacuum is.

Things move out of the way of your hand when you move it, and due to the low pressure behind the hand, the matter that has moved will spill round your hand and fill in behind it.

If you could move you hand fast enough, you could create a vacuum for a few moments after the movement, while the matter that can fill it, starts to fill it.

Now baring in mind that for a fraction of a moment, that vacuum is behind the hand, if you hand is already in a vacuum, then there is no matter (gas, liquid or otherwise) to fill in the gap behind. The hand moves all the same, albeit faster due to not pushing anything out of the way.

A rocket in space has to push nothing out ahead of it, and leaves a huge cloud of expanding gas behind it, but when that rockets fuel runs out the rocket doesnt just stop because there is no longer anything to move, it simply glides forever till it hits somthing (or a great many tiny some things)

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by spy66

 

Why does the change have to be intelligent? Suppose you are looking at an empty expanse of ground, then plop something hits that ground... was it intelligence or just gravity.

If there is a creator at work all logic and rationality would say it's a force or combination of forces not an intelligence.

Creating the concept of god(s) was just the easiest way to 1. Answer an impossible question... and 2. To control people.

You have to look at this at a much bigger scale to see how intelligent the finite system is. Because the whole finite system function together as a unity driven by the absolute infinite empty space "the absolute vacuum".

There is a reason why a vacuum is a very important tool within science. Because all matter exist at different values of vacuum space.

But why must there be a creator?

Lets say that the absolute infinite empty space does exist. This space was the very first space that always was and always is.

A absolute infinite empty space is a absolute constant. Since it is absolute. It is the only true constant that never changes randomly over time. It will always be absolut empty. Today we know that the absolute empty space have made a change. And formed a finite existance of matter. The question is how can a absolute constant change? According to math a absolute constant can not change randomly.

Originally posted by spy66


A absolute infinite empty space is a absolute constant. Since it is absolute. It is the only true constant that never changes randomly over time. It will always be absolut empty.

This "absolute infinite empty space" seems more of a philosophical definition. Do you have any examples?

Science has found that space, devoid of particles and energy, is affected by gravity and is very unstable. If you remove space itself, they seem to think it will still inevitably produce space and matter, even an entire universe.

www.youtube.com...

Today we know that the absolute empty space have made a change. And formed a finite existance of matter. The question is how can a absolute constant change? According to math a absolute constant can not change randomly.

If it changed, wouldn't that give a hint that it was not the "absolute constant" the way you think of it?

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

This "absolute infinite empty space" seems more of a philosophical definition. Do you have any examples?

I dont have a concreate example of a absolute infinite empty space. Because it is empossible to create such a vacuum within the space of our universe. I base my theory on that a vacuum space is a very much used tool within science to study matter and aprticles. We have reached a absolute vacuum standard compared to the technology we have. But it is not thee absolute vacuum. There is also a big difference in the vacuums we produce. The vacuums we produce are always surrounded by matter "by a chaimber". A open vacuum always sourrounds matter. "The vacuum space in our universe surround matter".

A vacuum or a absolute vacuum are always neutral. They are never negative in pressure. A vacuum only seams negative when matter or particles are present in the vacuum. Or you have a vacuum chaimber. Matter or particles can never be as neutral as the vacuum surrounding it.
This means we have at least two forms of gravity present; We have a differential between matter and the vacuum "empty space". Than you have the mass of the particle/matter.

If you remove space itself, they seem to think it will still inevitably produce space and matter, even an entire universe.

What space are you refering to; A vacuum space inside a chaimber or the vacuum space within our universe?

-----There is a reason why you cant remove space. The reason is: The absolute infinite empty space takes up all space possible outside the space of our universe.

-----There is a reason why energy can not be destroyed. It is because the absolute infinite empty space is infinite.

reply to post by mrphilosophias

The absurdity of this premise is self-evident as "from nothing comes nothing". You have agreed to this premise, whether you realize it or not, in your own argument, and by doing so you confirm that there must have been some infinitely powerful and efficacious first cause through Whom the entire Universe came to exist. We call this First Cause God!

I'm 50/50 on the above statement - nice try converting me into a believer.

I will never concede that an intelligent agent always existed; this is just adding to the absurdity. Even if an intelligence entity did create the universe, he/she/them/it most certainly had to evolve from energy into thinking beings of some kind.

reply to post by mrphilosophias

Seek and you shall find. Proofs for the existence of the immaterial soul go back thousands of years, and the more science learns about the Universe and the Human Person the more it becomes glaringly obvious that there is a Masterful Creator behind it all.

Really? Just because the quantum world is weird you can make such a glaringly obvious claim? Just remember, it was glaringly obvious to primitive man that the gods shook the earth and caused volcanic eruptions and hurricanes.

reply to post by ImaFungi

if you had one solitary marble or particle, and shot it through infinite nothingness,

Why is everyone trying to get past this question: What fills in the space behind the flying marble?

Flying marble:---> ############################O What is filling in the space (all the ###) the marble occupied along its path?

reply to post by Biigs

Im not sure the OP understands what a perfect vacuum is.

For this thread it doesn't matter. All I want is for our minds to go back to when a hypothetical state of absolute nothing existed and tell me how that nothingness could fill in the space that a moving object previously occupied, and how matter could push its way through the nothingness. Let's try and be clear about this: this realm of Something isn't sitting on a cosmic ball of nothingness and spreading out over the surface. For lack of a better example, we are IN the ball of nothingness, not on it. So, without knowing how matter can move into a space of absolute nothing, then there couldn't have been a big bang.

(Reminder: I am fully aware that everything I claim in this thread is just my uneducated thoughts and nothing more.)

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

if you had one solitary marble or particle, and shot it through infinite nothingness,

Why is everyone trying to get past this question: What fills in the space behind the flying marble?

Flying marble:---> ############################O What is filling in the space (all the ###) the marble occupied along its path?

If it is a theoretical perfect vacuum; Nothing! is filling in the space, all that exists in space, and it is nothingness (in this example) so the marble is somethingness, and if it was thrown by an arm, then it is moving in relation to the physical variables such as the arms strength, and momentum when releasing etc. Or perhaps there would be a way to detect the relative mass of the marble as its velocity changes, but im not sure, that might only be possible in our familiar universe where everything is give and take.

If there is infinite nothingness and all that exists is the marble itself within infinite nothingness, and the marble is traveling a million miles per hour, or 10 miles per hour, how would the marble be able to tell the difference, with no reference frames, or friction against its components.