An Argument for an Intelligent God

Newbie First Class Joined: Feb 02, 2008 Posts: 44

Quotes taken from "Can God be rigorously defined thread"

Romans wrote

Quote:

I am not really talking about a creator of existence. I'm talking the object that just is and put things in change and in motion. The definition of a thing that "just is" would be self-existent. Because it "just is" and was not formed from anything else.

Pwnt

Mr._C wrote

Quote:

Ah, but if no question-begging-concept-stealing-existence-creator isn't necessary and a thing "just is", then this definition would fit the cosmos quite nicely. No God necessary.

pwnt

Ok for better or for worse I see these statements as common ground and a good place to begin the next step in an argument for an Intelligent God.

Even including all the other possible dimensions the cosmos can be reduced to two factors Material and energy. Since the whole mechanism is already in motion we must assume that the eternal thing or the thing that "just is" was not a singular thing but at least two independent and unrelated objects. The change and motion that we observe would ultimately have been a result of the primary object acting upon the secondary object. If both objects were already in motion that would be observable evidence of a previous object so it is logically conclusive that both objects were static.

So how does a object go from being static to being in motion with nothing to act upon it? It must have the internal capability of putting itself in motion (power) and a "will" to decide to put itself into motion. (divine nature) since, a non-animated object that does not have any external influences will surely remain in a static state with nothing to release it's energy potential.

BTW - this is the point of Romans 1:20 and why it is evident and clearly observed
_________________

Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:52 am

romans120 wrote:

Since the whole mechanism is already in motion we must assume that the eternal thing or the thing that "just is" was not a singular thing but at least two independent and unrelated objects.

You may in fact be making an unwarranted assumption here, which is based only upon our "observable" universe. It's very possible, and I think even probable that space is flat, and thus the universe itself (what we have observed and the infinite amount we haven't), is in fact infinite. If this is true, then there is an infinite amount of interactions happening in an infinite continuum (most of which are simply intrinsic, non-intelligent, natural interactions). This is hard to grasp and a bit overwhelming for those hold the ideology of a god/universe only hypothesis, which is in turn becoming a myopic perspective.

Quote:

BTW - this is the point of Romans 1:20 and why it is evident and clearly observed

This bible quote is nothing more then a naked assertion. There is no evidence that the observable universe was intelligently created. It only works if you assume the empty assertion is correct.

Newbie First Class Joined: Feb 02, 2008 Posts: 44

MockingGods wrote:

romans120 wrote:

Since the whole mechanism is already in motion we must assume that the eternal thing or the thing that "just is" was not a singular thing but at least two independent and unrelated objects.

You may in fact be making an unwarranted assumption here, which is based only upon our "observable" universe. It's very possible, and I think even probable that space is flat, and thus the universe itself (what we have observed and the infinite amount we haven't), is in fact infinite. If this is true, then there is an infinite amount of interactions happening in an infinite continuum (most of which are simply intrinsic, non-intelligent, natural interactions). This is hard to grasp and a bit overwhelming for those hold the ideology of a god/universe only hypothesis, which is in turn becoming a myopic perspective.

Quote:

BTW - this is the point of Romans 1:20 and why it is evident and clearly observed

This bible quote is nothing more then a naked assertion. There is no evidence that the observable universe was intelligently created. It only works if you assume the empty assertion is correct.

So your not one of these big bang zealots huh?

Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:32 am

Romans120 wrote:

So how does a object go from being static to being in motion with nothing to act upon it? It must have the internal capability of putting itself in motion (power) and a "will" to decide to put itself into motion. (divine nature) since, a non-animated object that does not have any external influences will surely remain in a static state with nothing to release it's energy potential.

Try as I might, I cannot see this as anything but a dressed up begging of the entire question.

Christianity - and other religions - suggest that as something can't come of nothing and everything has a cause, therefore something had to be the first cause.

But the very next step is to suggest that this is not the case that everything needs a cause. Rather, everything needs a cause EXCEPT THE DESIGNER. How unfair to offer up a dilemma intended to prove a point, only to introduce the point by VIOLATING one of the premises that was supposed to PROVE the point.

As a former student of philosophy, I see nothing wrong with either option of the universe's ultimate origins. I see nothing wrong with saying that something could have infinitely existed, and I see nothing wrong with the idea of an infinite regress (other than the fact that most philosophers like to have a final answer, and therefore, such an idea is terrifying purely for intellectual reasons).

But neither of these demonstrate an INTELLIGENT creator, as the idea behind intelligence is to be, in some sense, conscious and mindful. Why is there reason to suggest that anything which existed infinitely was mindful. (Couldn't the cosmos have unintentionally given rise to other things without being conscious of it?After all, in evolutionary history, the designing mind seems to be a quite current invention.

Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:28 am

romans120 wrote:

MockingGods wrote:

romans120 wrote:

Since the whole mechanism is already in motion we must assume that the eternal thing or the thing that "just is" was not a singular thing but at least two independent and unrelated objects.

You may in fact be making an unwarranted assumption here, which is based only upon our "observable" universe. It's very possible, and I think even probable that space is flat, and thus the universe itself (what we have observed and the infinite amount we haven't), is in fact infinite. If this is true, then there is an infinite amount of interactions happening in an infinite continuum (most of which are simply intrinsic, non-intelligent, natural interactions). This is hard to grasp and a bit overwhelming for those hold the ideology of a god/universe only hypothesis, which is in turn becoming a myopic perspective.

Quote:

BTW - this is the point of Romans 1:20 and why it is evident and clearly observed

This bible quote is nothing more then a naked assertion. There is no evidence that the observable universe was intelligently created. It only works if you assume the empty assertion is correct.

So your not one of these big bang zealots huh?

The current evidence strongly suggests that all the matter we are currently observing was at one time highly compressed then suddenly expanded outward. This however says little about what lies beyond our observable realm. There’s no reason why the “big bang” could not have been a localized event and other “big bangs” or “big crunches” aren’t happening elsewhere, perhaps even in infinite numbers.

Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:31 am

KTP wrote:

But the very next step is to suggest that this is not the case that everything needs a cause. Rather, everything needs a cause EXCEPT THE DESIGNER. How unfair to offer up a dilemma intended to prove a point, only to introduce the point by VIOLATING one of the premises that was supposed to PROVE the point.

Even if the universe is finite, as most religious people are want to believe, they still must address this conundrum. Good point Kevin Cool

Newbie First Class Joined: Feb 02, 2008 Posts: 44

Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:

Romans120 wrote:

So how does a object go from being static to being in motion with nothing to act upon it? It must have the internal capability of putting itself in motion (power) and a "will" to decide to put itself into motion. (divine nature) since, a non-animated object that does not have any external influences will surely remain in a static state with nothing to release it's energy potential.

Try as I might, I cannot see this as anything but a dressed up begging of the entire question.

Christianity - and other religions - suggest that as something can't come of nothing and everything has a cause, therefore something had to be the first cause.

But the very next step is to suggest that this is not the case that everything needs a cause. Rather, everything needs a cause EXCEPT THE DESIGNER. How unfair to offer up a dilemma intended to prove a point, only to introduce the point by VIOLATING one of the premises that was supposed to PROVE the point.

As a former student of philosophy, I see nothing wrong with either option of the universe's ultimate origins. I see nothing wrong with saying that something could have infinitely existed, and I see nothing wrong with the idea of an infinite regress (other than the fact that most philosophers like to have a final answer, and therefore, such an idea is terrifying purely for intellectual reasons).

But neither of these demonstrate an INTELLIGENT creator, as the idea behind intelligence is to be, in some sense, conscious and mindful. Why is there reason to suggest that anything which existed infinitely was mindful. (Couldn't the cosmos have unintentionally given rise to other things without being conscious of it?After all, in evolutionary history, the designing mind seems to be a quite current invention.

I'm all for eternal things that do not need a creator so don't confuse the argument.

So you believe it is possible for things to be in motion that were not acted upon that also lack the will to act upon themselves?

I see infinite regressions as just as complicating to the issue as you would say introducing a deity to the issue would be. All it is useful for is avoiding the prime mover question I'm bringing up. And brings to the table way more questions than it answers.

So How did the first particle or string start vibrating without choosing to do so?

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:16 am

romans120 wrote:

So How did the first particle or string start vibrating without choosing to do so?

How do you know that particle vibration had a beginning and that they haven't always vibrated given the correct state? Isn't this question akin to asking, "Why did that lightning bolt choose to hit the ground?"

Quote:

I see infinite regressions as just as complicating to the issue as you would say introducing a deity to the issue would be.

I see natural answers more compelling then claiming some magic invisible guy did it, regardless of the complication.

Newbie Joined: Jan 30, 2008 Posts: 11

Why are you assuming that the default state of all things is to be at rest? Inertia is a two way street. An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by another force and an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by another force . Aside from that, there is also the fact that everything is in motion. We have yet to observe anything that is truly at rest. And what reason is there to believe that absolute rest exists in the first place, much less that it is the de facto state of anything?

Newbie First Class Joined: Feb 02, 2008 Posts: 44

SocraticCoaster wrote:

Why are you assuming that the default state of all things is to be at rest? Inertia is a two way street. And what reason is there to believe that absolute rest exists in the first place?

Why shouldn't I? (I don't mean this in a snotty way I really want an answer)

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:36 am

SocraticCoaster wrote:

And what reason is there to believe that absolute rest exists in the first place?

I believe at absolute zero particles do cease to vibrate, but this obviously isn't there typical state. He probably also believes that at one time there were no particles to vibrate, only a god, which in turns begs the question, where did particles come from unless this god isn't at least somewhat composed of particles?

I know, God magically winked them into existence like Barbara Eden would in I dream of Genie. Wink

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:38 am

romans120 wrote:

SocraticCoaster wrote:

Why are you assuming that the default state of all things is to be at rest? Inertia is a two way street. And what reason is there to believe that absolute rest exists in the first place?

Why shouldn't I? (I don't mean this in a snotty way I really want an answer)

Simply because the typical state of the particle isn't at rest. In fact, it seems this state is very rare.

Newbie Joined: Jan 30, 2008 Posts: 11

My apologies, guys, I was expecting it would be awhile before anyone responded, so I kind of went willy nilly with the editing.

romans120 wrote:

Why shouldn't I? (I don't mean this in a snotty way I really want an answer)

We’ve seen plenty of things in motion, but never anything truly at rest. You are free to assume that everything started off at rest and then started moving, but the rest of us are just as free to expect justification before adopting such a belief ourselves. You’re argument seems to be that something had to get everything moving, but that assumes that it started at rest. I don’t share that assumption.

MockingGods wrote:

I believe at absolute zero particles do cease to vibrate, but this obviously isn't there typical state.

From what I understand (and I am admittedly not up to date on my physics these days) absolute zero is still theoretical. It may be that it is possible, but even then, there doesn’t seem to be reason to assume that it is the default. It could just as easily be that motion is the default and rest requires action (though not necessarily intelligent action.

Quote:

He probably also believes that at one time there were no particles to vibrate, only a god, which in turns begs the question, where did particles come from unless this god is at least somewhat composed of particles?

Meh, even granting the possibility of magic, it doesn’t add up. Saying the spacetime (all of it, not just the observable parts) requires a creator is like saying that causality requires a cause.

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:48 am

Romans wrote:

So you believe it is possible for things to be in motion that were not acted upon that also lack the will to act upon themselves?

I do not see any reason why such a thing could be IMPOSSIBLE. And per Socratic Coaster's insightful comments, we have never seen anything that was not at motion.

There are two halfs, lest we forget, to Newton's law. While one half says that an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon, the first half says that an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon.

The question is: which is the default position. There is no good reason to suppose that it is rest and not motion.

Quote:

I see infinite regressions as just as complicating to the issue as you would say introducing a deity to the issue would be. All it is useful for is avoiding the prime mover question I'm bringing up. And brings to the table way more questions than it answers.

Both answers are quite unsatisfactory.

But, I don't see why postulating an infinite regress 'complicates the issue.' What argument is there against it as a possibility?

(Honestly, my suspicion is that we may never actually know which - if any - was the original case.)

Quote:

So How did the first particle or string start vibrating without choosing to do so?

Socratic coaster did a good job with this one. It seems virtually impossible for a theist to even comprehend the idea that 'start' is a made up word. What if the particle was always vibrating? Why is that not possible?

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:53 am

SocraticCoaster wrote:

From what I understand (and I am admittedly not up to date on my physics these days) absolute zero is still theoretical.

You very well could be right. If so, then assuming particles can be in a non-energetic state isn't realistic given current observations.

Quote:

It may be that it is possible, but even then, there doesn’t seem to be reason to assume that it is the default.

No reason to assume it should be, I agree.

Quote:

Saying the spacetime (all of it, not just the observable parts) requires a creator is like saying that causality requires a cause.

The ID crowd (one if which is probably Romans) believe causality requires not only a cause, but an intelligent cause.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore