Subjective Evidence of Gods

quote:

---

Brain matter no doubt is the medium for all of our thoughts but where does an original thought come from?

---

That is the prickly thorn for humanity, affecting science and all other faculties. To be more precise, we do not know the origins of anything whatsoever: how far back can we go to trace a pineapple's original source? I do not think the problem is with the human mind's abilities, but that if there is another source out there, it is fastidiously and intentionally barred to us; it cannot be a mere impossibly difficult thing to do, but more a shut off. Every path and angle leads to a fire wall - which means it cannot be accidental or a random situation.With regard to our thoughts after we pass away, it will be cruel to have humans retain their memories of this realm, while being sent to another totally different one: it serves no purpose. It is more plausible we go back where we came from, rather than to another place. We won't need our bodies or minds because we originally never had one and won't need them where we came from: can a sperm or egg cell contain bodies?
A wise man said, 'When we die, all our thoughts die with us' [King Solomon].Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Why buy retail when you can get it wholsesale, direct from the factory owner?

"It is about a recreation of our present world".Yes, I sit corrected - its called going forth and correcting the incompleted world. Otherwise this entire universe won't have any purpose, contradicting the premise the universe was created in wisdom. The purpose is unknown, awaiting the advent of a Messiah to reveal this purpose. For Christianity this has already happened, yet many are still in confusion of it. But ultimately we have to return and say job done, no?Its a big task, and I believe it is one of an accumulative process of all humanity's deeds and asset knowledge - this is also how science works.

And just who is the factory owner?The owner of the factory is the factory owner. The rest are appointed foreman, managers and distribution agents appointed in different positions, as in the law of delegation. I say, why not deal with the owner directly - its much cheaper that way and you get an unadultrated product.

Isaiah was a literary genius, his words were so powerful, his finger pointing at a bad king in Israel got him killed. I believe his writings influenced Shakespeare and a host of other writers, proving the word is the most powerful tool in the universe. Arguably, the universe was created with a word, namely Gd "SAID' let there be light, applies to speech. This is one reason that speech [the word] is said to pre-date the universe blueprint.Its like building a house: first comes the thought of a house image, then the blueprints. Thereafter the raw material. Another view is that everything was created in an instant as a click action, and each product was changed from potential to actuality in its due time. Then again, some believe it just happened or was always there, which I admit is confounding to my small mind.

I see the opening 4 words in Genesis as a scientific premise; an incumbent statement of a writing which discusses the origins of the universe and stated in its correct place - at the opening. Whether we agree with it or not, it is an answer, as opposed no answer whatsoever of the most important question of all. It also says the universe is absolutely finite; and every person discussing this issue should place their preamble at top: is their universe finite or infinite.I know of no counter to creationism. It does not change a damn thing though: 2+2 still equals 4; its just that we don't know what 2 means.

Subjective Evidence of Gods.Once, this universe never existed - there was no nature, environment, light, energy forces, science, laws - not even nothingness existed. Pre- Multi- and parallel universes violate this universe's finite factor, and only pushes the goal poster further: we still end up with the same brick wall. Thus:There is no scientific alternative to Creationism: a universe maker for the universe. The sound premise wins the arguement.

quote:

---

You didn't answer the question.
The factory owner is the factory owner says nothing.
Give me a name.

---

I did answer the question and you are running away from it. It has nothing to do with a name [this appeared only after humans emerged!]. The metaphoric example I gave says if a factory must have a factory owner, the universe must have a universe maker; to disprove the latter you must disprove the former.The sound premise wins.

quote:

---

Show me any evidence of a Universe maker. Why is it always the comparison of a man made object, when he universe is a natural phenomenon.

---

Showing a universe maker is easy: produce a container which is size friendly! The proof factor is neutralized because both premises cannot do thisL you have no merit in assuming you have proof of any kind.There is also no such thing as 'nature': show your evidence of this? I offered examples of proof and logic we see before us, which is called 'EVIDENCE AND PROOF' - the man made factor does not negate this; it is the most scientific premise of all we have. When you can prove a factor can subsist without a factory owner - then you may have a case. Of course you do not, and of course you want to reject this check mate response.

What you call ridiculous, I call manifest before your eyes example of proof, and well as the most scientific premise we have: cause & effect.It is your premise which has no proof whatsoever of the premise you debate. The correct protocol of this issue is seen in the document which introduced the creation premise; the greatest philosophers and scientists, like Spinoza and Einstein, all agreed there has to be an X factor aplying [read, not nature] for the universe's emergence; and such a premise is only another form of subscribing to creationism! Step by step:Is the universe you inhabit infinite?

quote:

---

Where is the premise of creation? That is the evidence I am asking for.
The so called X factor does not mean creation. Where is any evidence of creation, rather than natural causation. GIVE ME SOME EVIDENCE

---

Your question is poor. There is a dfference between proof and evidences; the former is not available to any premise, thus it cannot be proposed by any party. The evidence is against your arguement, namely that a complexity is not based on a random or causeless factor - this is unseen anywhere in the universe and not a science premise. There is no such thing as nature; as a state of being, it is clearly post-universe and cannot be considered as a causative factor of the universe itself.

quote:

---

Anything that has a beginning is by definition "finite."

---

So I ask those who discuss the universe origins to first place their preamble: finite or infinite. None do so.

quote:

---

So since the universe began, as you so aptly pointed out, this means the universe came from something else. If there were ever a time when there were absolutely "nothing" then nothing would still be here because something cannot come from nothing. So the fact that something finite is here now tells us clearly that something infinite must exist from which the finite originated. Wouldn't you say we could arrive at that conclusion based on "scientific" observation?

---

I don't think there is a choice factor here for science to disagree. If we agree the uni is finite, it refers also to everything contained in the universe, including the premise of nothing, which is merely a counterpart of something: one cannot have nothing unless there is something! The only exception may be something else, which does not exist in this universe, and is totally unconnected and non-transferable, can exist outside the universe. I cannot even spell it.
Genesis answers this issue in its opening four words: 'In the beginning Gd'. Hey, at least its an answer and its not outside of science. The issue here is not that we can or cannot disprove this declaration, but that how Genesis boldly came up with a declaration which cannot be challenged with a counter. Knowing this dif is a reveation in itself.

quote:

---

However that still leaves us wrestling with the question of, "What is It?" What is that infinite "thing" from which the universe sprang? Is there another observation that can be drawn from science that can help? For example is "IT" just a mindless force of infinite energy like on Star Wars (the force be with you Luke. Lol) Or does "IT" possess intelligence. This must be important when discussing evidence for God because the most basic of human definitions of God is: a supreme, infinite, intelligent creator of the universe. Without proving intelligence we are left with a mindless "force."

---

Again, I got the best answer of this enigma from Genesis - and I am not religious. The IT cannot be a singularity; it must be a duality [Genesis]. No action can occur with an irreducuble and indivisible lone item. This is the most underated wisdom from Genesis.

quote:

---

So this means we need to know a clear scientific way in which we can detect intelligence. Something that works in all situations no matter what. Well how about we take a look at what scientists already use as their "intelligence detector." For example marine biologists use specific patterns in dolphin communication to determine levels of intelligence. I am told that they even think that dolphins may name each other like humans do. Or in the field of archaeology, the scientist looks for specific recognizable patterns or function to tell if an object is natural or man made. Also SETI scientists search for specific narrow bandwidths in radio signals which have never been observed occurring naturally, and would indicate extraterrestrial intelligence.

---

Its not an issue of intelligence when it comes to origins. We did not exist yet and the mechanics of origins cannot apply to a post-universe mechanics when elements existed. There is nothing wrong with our minds, the origins of everything is just barred to our mind's wiring, and cannot be had voluntarilly. A seperation threshold is placed which we cannot overcome. One day we will be able to move Jupiter 5% to the left - yet be helpless when it comes to the origins of anything whatsoever: this gives great credence to Genesis, every honest mind realizes it, but disdains it nonetheless.

quote:

---

That's three very different fields of science, but all which have one thing in common when looking for intelligence. They all use specificity as the indicating factor. Specificity can be defined simply as: A distinguishing quality or attribute explicitly set forth; as Intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose. The question always arises as to how do we scientifically identify rather or not something is specified. Here's the simple explanation: Any event or object which exhibits a pattern that matches a foreknown pattern that was completely interdependent of the first. In other words, for an observer to test for specificity, he must be able to recognize it from a completely independent experience. This can either be a pattern that produces a recognition response or a functional response.
When the marine biologist recognizes a pattern in the dolphins communication and sees that it always brings about the same exact response with all the dolphins raised in that group, then they know they are observing "specificity" in Delphinus delphis communication. The same can be said for the archaeologist and the SETI scientist. Specificity is the key to detecting intelligence, and to date not a single case of something specified has ever been observed occurring naturally.

​

I said all of that to point out that the DNA "code" in all living creatures in so highly specified that it makes the most complex and sophisticated of specified computer programs look like mere children's crayola scribbles in comparison. That means the only conclusion is that all life observed in the universe must have come from intelligence. Therefore the infinite "IT" that we scientifically demonstrated to exist above must also be intelligent.
What was the term again for an infinite, intelligent, creator of the universe?

---

Science is post universe. Laws came before science, and science is an explanation of those laws.

Firstly, you have no evidence whatsoever of any position that does not supprt a universe maker for an existng universe. Such a position is not based on any scientific premise whatsoever and is less than fiction. This is the preamble.Secondly, there is absolute evidence of a universe maker: no other possibility is open. It is not as though another source is provided or posited as a potential, which is incumbent and not an option to dismiss.Thirdly, all of science's most respected figures agree with [1], declaring a complexity has to have a source and cannot subsist in its absence, al beit they call this an X factor. This inclines only with a universe maker.Conclusion: 1 & 3 is vested in science and the sound premise. Its rejection rests on non-science and not a sound premise.Objections without alternate sound premises is not a premise at all.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I can test that static electricity accounts for thunder and lightning and on this basis confidently but tentatively reject the idea that some supernatural agency is involved.

---

Your own position negates your conclusion. If thunder is the result of cause and effect, you cannot also say the universe is not so.Thunder and lightning are obviously caused by laws which turn on the rain cycle, effecting weather patterns which humanity and all life has to cater to with management and stewardship; in turn such management abilities are also based on corresponding laws. Otherwise life would not exist and the universe would allow no form of elevation and management to humanity. Its like a situation of testing prowess by a school teacher to students training for the olympics: these are based on laws that test and elevate.

quote:

---

How do you know that cause and effect is not a particular property of our universe and thus not relevant to it's own existence?

---

I don't say its not a property of the universe or that its not relevant. I do say such properties and its relevancy cannot occur of its self or by its self. I cite the analogy of a car and a car maker; what premise is its antithesis based on?A scientific premise cannot be rejcted by an unscientific one. Cause & effect is scientific; effect without cause is not.