Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Was it? It was caused by an interaction of intelligent beings, are you proposing that humans designed the process of conception? Hopefully not and given this argument is about proving that intelligence cannot occur without God's input, trying to suggest that God created the process of birth makes the argument circular.
Ok, so since you are sticking with this, trace mankind back to its origins. Tell me at what point in this blind, randon, and unguided process does intelligence come in to play?? Remember, you believe intelligence can come from nonintelligence, so if we trace our origins (being intelligent beings), back to our parents, if we were to travel back in time, from parent to parent, until we reach a point where humans did not exist, tell me at what point did intelligence come in to play.
How so? Either non-intelligent organisms are incapable of producing intelligence or not. I advocate that some non-intelligent organisms are capable of producing intelligence, such as the zygote producing an intelligent human.
And I argue that since the zygote doesn't exist indepedently of the intelligent beings that created it, it cant be used as an example of non-intelligence creating intelligence.
Yes and their reproductive system is non-intelligent and their reproductive system produces non-intelligent cells and when those cells come together to form a zygote, that zygote is non intelligent. But that zygote grows into an intelligent being through completely natural processes. Intelligence coming from non-intelligence.
Ok, so as I said, trace everything back to its origins, to where there was no intelligence or zygote, and explain how did intelligence come in to play. But you cant do this, because there is no scientific answer as to how life itself could have arisen from non-living material, let alone intelligence. Third, there are astronomical odds against our universe being life permitting in the first place, and there is also astronomical odds against life coming from nonlife. So you have to deal with improbability + improbability.....which will only give you the sum of more improbability.
Please actually explain why you think that the production of gametes by intelligent beings is relevant to my argument. You have asserted and reasserted it but never actually put a counter argument forward.
Because so far, I havent gotten a good response as to how, in every living and breathing organism, does each species happen to have what is needed in its reproductive system to reproduce with the opposite sex, from the intelligent human to the cockroach. Evolution cannot be used as a response to this, because it will assume what has not yet been proven. I will gladly wait on a response from either you or someone else to explain this incredible thing to me.
What caused time to begin though? Did time spontaneously begin which allowed for movement and action to occur.
In a short answer, yes.
Was God motionless and incapable of thought or action and then suddenly time began and therefore he began doing things? I suppose that makes sense, without time, change doesn't occur so when time begins change occurs.
God was motionless and content...and changeless.
So God did not cause or create time, time began at some point and God, being previously "frozen in time," began thinking and doing when time began.
Gods thoughts existed with his eternal existence. His thoughts never changed. He had an eternal will to do what he did, so his thought process never "began" to do anything.
He would not have even known that he was ever without time because while time is stopped nothing changes, if time stopped right this moment, you would be mid-thought, mid action and no change would occur at all, anywhere. So if time stopped and then started again, it would go unnoticed.
There is no such thing as "stopping in time"....or time to suddenly "stop". Time will go on forever towards an infinite future. Time just simply didnt exist before creation, and has existed and moving forward towards the future ever since.
This is actually really interesting, if time did not exist at all prior to 13.7 billion years ago, when it began what did God think? That would be his first thought lest his existence prior to this had a preformed thought or action? Food for thought.
His will to create the universe was an eternal will. He never "began" to think it. He always knew it. Nothing in his thought process "began". That is why I asked you, if time was infinite, why did it just begin to exist only 13.7 billion years ago? There is no answer for this. But if you are an agent with free will, and you "begin" to do something, the time at which you "began" to do something is a result of your free will. So on my view, I can say "the universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago because that is the time that God wanted it to begin." A being with free will can freely choose to do something at any time he/it wants to. But on your view, there is no answer to this.
But what caused time to begin? It couldn't be God because without time, change is impossible. Time's beginning seems to be a conundrum, it could not have been created or caused but it appears to have began at some point.
God caused time. That is the point, THERE WAS NO CHANGE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TIME. If I have been sitting PERFECTLY still in a chair, for all eternity, this is a timeless state. There were no moments before me sitting, and there were no moments after me sitting. Time does not exist. Once I move my leg in the chair, time begins. That is the first change. I just went from being atemopral, to temporal, and once this occurs, I am stuck in time forever.
Common Cosmology states not that time did not exist but that in the singularity time broke down as did all of the laws of physics. It's not that it was necessarily non-existent but perhaps different, beyond our understanding of time. Basically it reaffirms what I've been saying, within the singularity all known laws of physics and even our concept of space and time, matter and energy all breaks down. Nobody knows anything that occurred or existed prior to the expansion.
That is the thing. We dont necessarily have to rely on cosmology as proving grounds of a finite past. We have enough philosophical arguments against the concept of an eternal past that gives us sufficient reasons for believing that time began. So nothing in this "time" subject hangs on contemporary cosmology. It just so happens that cosmology coroberates other arguments that we already have.
"Have to," is a bit much. "Can" is a bit more accurate.
No.....have to.....what part of "science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain" dont you understand??
"sitting there for all eternity", since time didn't exist or at least, not in the capacity we understand it, this statement is meaningless. You may as well ask, "Why did it sit there for a nano-second before expanding?"
That is a legitimate question, why. There had to be a reason that exists beyond the singularity. There is no getting past this.
I do not believe that, I accept that prior to the expansion of the universe from the singularity, time and all of science and universal laws break down.
They break down because scientific reasonsing breaks down.
Note: Wikipedia is not a peer reviewed article.
Your theory about the meaning of the quote is noted and discarded, it is clear from the text that the author believes STEM came into existence within the singularity. As I have shown several times already, without space and matter density is not possible. If the singularity is infinitely dense then it must contain a lot of matter, for matter to exist somewhere, space must exist for without space, "somewhere" does not exist.
I responded to this by saying that all of STEM began to exist at once. This only makes logical sense because you cant have matter without space, or matter without time. Logically impossible.