Summations Only

Would you agree that a theory which results in verifiable predictions and discoveries is superior to a theory which effectively just says "I can explain this by invoking magic"...?Isn't that what is happening here?

That misses the point, and is absolutely the wrong question. In order for science to come to all the miraculous discoveries it has required intelligence and reason. The notion of God isn't about coming up with a flat screen television as impressive as that my be.If "goddidit" then God is ultimately responsible for all intelligence and reason and for all of the discoveries of science - every last one.So it always come back to the basic question. Which is more plausible - is intelligence the result of the chance coming together of mindless, non or uni-dimensional particles or is it the result of an intelligent first cause.

I think you have the question wrong.The question is, is it more plausible that the most basic part of reality is simple or a massively complex ordered entity ?I'll go with simple, because assuming unexplained complexity and order is just asking to be wrong.

Quite apart from a 'first cause' being a logical paradox of its own, mathematicians are proving - to themselves at least - that the universe can indeed manufacture itself.Then, of course, we have the total non-sequitur that the God of the first cause knows or cares about us and needs worshipping as a result - now that is just totally implausible.

The most basic part of "natural" reality is complex arrangement of particles that appear to have properties that are either non-dimensional or uni-dimensional. In the end we know something about the properties of these particles but in the end know very little about. They pop in and out of our perceived existence. They don't take our perceived form until they are observed and then we find that they go back in time in order to be observed.Even if you can imagine all of that forming without an intelligent first cause you then have to believe that somehow there was a chance coming together of these particles to form atoms, and then molecules. It takes a great deal of faith to believe all of this.However now that there are atoms and molecules to our great fortune these all combined to form an incredibly small living cell which has a complexity that would at least rival any of our computers.Now that we have cells, again with incredible good fortune of these cells coming together in such a way that far more complex life forms with the ability to actually think, even if it was only instinct and based on survival.Then we have to believe that these life forms evolved into humans with the intelligence humans to understand today's science and to have developed a code of morality.Again I ask, Which is more plausible? That all of that happened by blind chance or is there an intelligent first cause. I can't begin to generate enough faith to conceive of the first choice as being even the least bit plausible.

That again points to design. It is consistent with what we have observed. Evolution once started can roll along on its own. Life reproduces itself. YOu have to believe that all of that can come about from what we know of beginnings without any intelligent initiative. That is the difference between theistic and the deistic beliefs. Deism requires that we believe in an intelligent first cause but then having got the whole thing rolling had no further interest in his/her/its project. In my view that again is highly implausible.The worshipping part is another question. I see it as being for our benefit and not His.

quote:

---

The most basic part of "natural" reality is complex arrangement of particles that appear to have properties that are either non-dimensional or uni-dimensional. In the end we know something about the properties of these particles but in the end know very little about. They pop in and out of our perceived existence. They don't take our perceived form until they are observed and then we find that they go back in time in order to be observed.

---

Not really.

quote:

---

Even if you can imagine all of that forming without an intelligent first cause you then have to believe that somehow there was a chance coming together of these particles to form atoms, and then molecules. It takes a great deal of faith to believe all of this.

---

So this intelligent first cause is composed of these particles and is more likely to come together by "chance" than a hydrogen atom. I somehow think that this view requires even more faith.

quote:

---

Again I ask, Which is more plausible? That all of that happened by blind chance or is there an intelligent first cause. I can't begin to generate enough faith to conceive of the first choice as being even the least bit plausible.

---

If you call all alternatives to an intelligent cause is "blind chance" then it is obviously more plausible that the complexity we see developed slowly through the mechanisms that we have at least some knowledge and understanding of than that a greater complexity just popped into existence through "blind chance" and then directed all the rest.Really you can't argue that atoms are too complex to form without an intelligent cause and then argue that an intelligent being - more complex than a human being - could just pop into existence. It's completely absurd.

No, no and thrice no.You really need to get your head around this point because it's important and it's the exact opposite of what you think it is.The universe creating itself is exactly that. No creator. Nothing.Now you are going to say that something needs to set up the conditions for it to create itself and I'm going to say no it doesn't.And all I can say further about it is that Hawking et al believe that they can prove it mathematically but the rest of us normals have no chance of even beginning to understand it.The point remains that it seems possible that we can show that a first cause is unnecessary.

Why? If you can believe that a god who can design all the things you mentioned does not itself require intelligent design, then you can easily believe all the things you mention don't require intelligent design.

I could make numerous objections to your post but I'll restrict myself to one. Saying that the cause of intelligence is an existing intelligence doesn't make sense does it? If intelligence already exists then it is not and cannot be the cause of intelligence.So the question becomes thus - Do complex things like intelligence evolve from simple beginnings or do they just come/exist from nothing prior?All the evidence suggests the former.......

It is a matter of belief and we have come to different beliefs. IMHO the answer of an intelligent first cause is far more plausible than not. You obviously disagree. That is simply "science of the gaps". Also, showing that a first cause isn't necessary wouldn't prove that there wasn't one.

I’m going to copy this over from what I wrote on another thread a while back concerning who created God. The same objection keeps coming up on different threads so this is actually the third time I've posted this.In "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene, (one of my favourite books), he writes the following after talking about how we only experience time in one direction, and that we would expect there to be a law that confirms this.

quote:

---

"The perplexing thing is that no one has discovered any such law. What's more, the laws of physics that have been articulated from Newton through Maxwell and Einstein, and up to until today, show a complete symmetry between past and future. Nowhere in any of these laws do we find a stipulation that they apply one way in time but not the other. Nowhere is there any distinction between how the laws look or behave when applied in either direction in time. The laws treat what we call past and future on a completely equal footing."

---

It seems that our current understanding of the laws of physics indicate that theoretically it should be possible to exist by either going forward or back in time. This alone would allow for an infinite existence. We also know that some scientific theories such as string theory suggest that there might be even more, and maybe even 26 spacetime dimensions. In our existence that has 3 spatial dimensions we can move infinitely around our globe. I am not claiming this as anything but highly speculative but it seems to me that If our intelligent creator experienced existence in a world with 3 dimensions of time, then he/she/it would be able to move around infinitely in time just as we can travel infinitely around our globe.
It seems to me that this gives one possible explanation that allows for a creator that has always existed, and will always exist, negating the need for a creator of the creator.

We can't talk about an intelligence that already exists in our own time line as it has been repeatedly pointed out the idea of time prior to T=0 is meaningless. However if we are an emergent property of an eternal intelligence than it is fits.See my reply to bluegenes. If you believe the former then you are saying that the evolution from having nothing but fundamental particles to intelligent life is simple. That certainly exceeds what my feeble brain would call simple.

It will keep coming up, because your reply doesn't answer my point. You expressed incredulity at all kinds of things, from atoms to intelligent biological beings, coming into existence without being intelligently designed, but you find it credible that a god capable of designing all these things doesn't require intelligent design.That last takes away any reason for your initial incredulity.

Your thinking is linear. The explanation I gave gives a theory that is consistent with current scientific theory, or probably more accurately scientific speculation, of the rationale for an eternal being.I've also quoted this before but the headline in a 2010 Scientific American was "Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter - An Entire Universe May be Silently Interwoven With Our Own". If God is eternal then He always was and always will be, with no design required. Just because we only experience change in one direction doesn't mean that God's dimension is restricted in the same way.We all have incredulity in our beliefs. Sure I find it incredulous that all that we perceive could naturally come from mindless particles. You express incredulity at the thought of an intelligent first cause.