Intellegent Design

[Auronhart]

How is that intelligent design? If I throw an seed into a field, and it sprouts into a tree, did I design the tree?

You didn't somehow make the tree grow did you? The tree growing is a natural process that you didn't have a hand in, matter coming out of nowhere is not a natural process. I suppose it might seem possible that God made matter and time by accident or just "tossed the seed" as you put it, but that seems kind of unlikely given that space-time gives basically all the properties of the universe. (he would have had to create the concept of space-time by accident. It is much more likely that he at least thought about it first. (i.e. intelligent design)) That is even without all the factors in the universe which make it suitable for life. This site has some examples of these. http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo...m_design.shtml

That is the implication, yes. I don't think there are many modern scientists who don't think that time (at least the "bubble" of space-time that we call the universe) had a beginning.

Yes, but do they acknowledge the implication that we were created. (at least indirectly (mass was just created is what I mean by indirectly))

[Doomgaze]

Hawking isn't claiming God took care of the tree either, that seems to be your interpretation. I realize it's not the best example, as a tree is not a closed system, but it fits what Hawking is saying fairly well.

Life adapted to the universe, not vice versa. Yes, our location is fairly conducive to life (far from perfect, of course) but that is to be expected in the vastness of the universe. It only has to work once for us to be here to talk about it

Also, a beginning doesn't imply creation at all - it could be some sort of odd quantum leap type event, or the effect of another universe, or the reemergence of a universe which had collapsed back into a singularity, or countless other things. I don't immediately attribute anything I don't understand to the work of God.

Anyway. To keep the metaphor going, if you are suggesting that intelligent design means God threw the seed with the intention of it growing into a tree, and aimed at a patch of soil that would be good for the tree, than no, I can't argue with you. There's no proof either way, but it is an interesting philosophy.

[Auronhart]

Also, a beginning doesn't imply creation at all - it could be some sort of odd quantum leap type event

Quantum physics cannot create time, if I have it correct, it also cannot disobey the law of conservation of energy. (creating matter/energy out of nothing would) Plus, I don't think quantum mechanics can act independently of time.

or the effect of another universe

There is only one possible state that could exclude God, that would be that this other universe did not follow the rules of our universe (or if that universe was formed by another universe etc. which did not have a beginning), (if General Relativity is indeed a rule) and therefore would seem to us to be "supernatural". However, as you were saying, this would not imply intelligent design, but it would still provide the existence of a universe "greater" than our own. Even this idea would still require a causal agent, whether or not it was purposely done. Plus the causal agent would still require godlike powers to create time.

or the reemergence of a universe which had collapsed back into a singularity

The universe before would still require a supernatural being to create it. (unless you are suggesting that the laws of Physics would mysteriously change)

I don't immediately attribute anything I don't understand to the work of God.

Whatever, different universes with different physical rules which allows the universe to be infinite sounds pretty farfetched to me. As I pointed out before, this will always come to something out of the realm of science. (supernatural, unless general relativity is wrong of course) However, this argument still holds a strong point for intelligent design, the reason is that it 1. confirms the existence of a supernatural causal agent(s), which is outside our time and either is inside a universe in which time (different then ours of course) did not have a beginning, or does not have a beginning themselves and 2. also has the ability to create time. That is some strong stuff. I will admit, though, that it doesn't prove that "God" didn't just chuck the seed randomly though, so I will try to return to the topic.

Anyway. To keep the metaphor going, if you are suggesting that intelligent design means God threw the seed with the intention of it growing into a tree, and aimed at a patch of soil that would be good for the tree, than no, I can't argue with you. There's no proof either way, but it is an interesting philosophy.

I was saying that this is another possibility, I just try to have all the possible situations down when I argue. (I realize I don't always succeed)

[Doomgaze]

Oh, of course most of the things I mentioned were absurd. They were only examples. I didn't mean an actual quantum leap, by the way, merely something similar (and completely, fundamentally impossible, I'm sure)

Time seems to be an effect of the universe bursting into existence, I wouldn't say it had to be carefully designed. Merely part of the nature of the curvature of space-time. Or, uh, something.

Also, I think anything causing the creation of the universe would be by definition supernatural, wouldn't it? Assuming it didn't somehow originate from this universe, of course. Supernatural to us, I mean... The effects of the third dimensional universe would seem supernatural to a theoretical two-dimensional being. Who knows what (or who) is out there in a direction we can't quite point to?


EDIT: I should mention that most of what this discussion is getting into is merely thought experiments for me (and for science, I suppose). I don't believe much of what I'm saying now, merely throwing out possibilities.

EDIT2: It is possible that the Universe(s) are stuck in some sort of infinite loop, as well. I don't know what the implications of the Universe creating itself would be.

[Auronhart]

Time seems to be an effect of the universe bursting into existence, I wouldn't say it had to be carefully designed. Merely part of the nature of the curvature of space-time. Or, uh, something.

No, it doesn't have to be carefully designed, (finally back to the topic ) but that is the theory that we are continuing to find support for, a universe designed for life. Most things in the universe seem to be carefully balanced between being too large and too small. (either of which would be catastrophic for life)

Time seems to be an effect of the universe bursting into existence

The only way this could work were if matter/energy were created and then caused time. If matter/energy/space (the universe not including time) could work independently of time, we would have some strange stuff going on. Plus, it still doesn't eliminate the need for those things to be able to cause time. (which makes it even more unlikely)

Also, I think anything causing the creation of the universe would be by definition supernatural, wouldn't it? Assuming it didn't somehow originate from this universe, of course. Supernatural to us, I mean... The effects of the third dimensional universe would seem supernatural to a theoretical two-dimensional being. Who knows what (or who) is out there in a direction we can't quite point to?

It seems we understand each other. I think it is quite a reasonable belief to believe
that the causal agent exists in a different dimension than our own so we cannot understand how he created. Obviously we will still argue on whether the causal agent is sentient or not, but I guess that is part of the argument.

[Super Christ]

Quantum physics cannot create time, if I have it correct, it also cannot disobey the law of conservation of energy. (creating matter/energy out of nothing would) Plus, I don't think quantum mechanics can act independently of time.

A vacuum isn't truly a vacuum at all - it is filled with "virtual particles" - that is, particles continuously popping into existence and then disappearing back out of existence. They always appear in pairs - a particle and an anti-particle, and they almost always immediately annhilate each other. Sometimes enough energy is imparted to these particles that they get pushed apart, and do not annihilate, thus becoming real particles (Hawking raditation from black holes is probably the most notable example of this). There is no net energy gain or loss, and so this still obeys the laws of thermodynamics.

There is the idea going around, actually, that the universe itself is one of these quantum fluctuations. As long as it eventually returns to nothing, energy is conserved and the laws of thermodynamics remain unbroken. Not that that has a whole lot of relevance to the conversation, but it's an interesting sidenote to that comment.

[Auronhart]

A vacuum isn't truly a vacuum at all - it is filled with "virtual particles" - that is, particles continuously popping into existence and then disappearing back out of existence. They always appear in pairs - a particle and an anti-particle, and they almost always immediately annhilate each other. Sometimes enough energy is imparted to these particles that they get pushed apart, and do not annihilate, thus becoming real particles (Hawking raditation from black holes is probably the most notable example of this). There is no net energy gain or loss, and so this still obeys the laws of thermodynamics.

When matter and anti-matter annhilate each other, they let off energy, therefore there must be energy beforehand for this to occur or it would disobey the law of conservation of energy.

There is the idea going around, actually, that the universe itself is one of these quantum fluctuations. As long as it eventually returns to nothing, energy is conserved and the laws of thermodynamics remain unbroken. Not that that has a whole lot of relevance to the conversation, but it's an interesting sidenote to that comment.

Energy as well as time must exist beforehand for this to occur.

[Emerald Aeris]

"He says on the website in the quote I found that the equations of General Relativity implied (means that if relativity is true, time had a beginning) that time must have a beginning, I will finish reading his book to see what he says about this, but implied means if R then B. (where R is relativity and B is the beginning of time)"

Yes, I didn't disagree with that. What I disagree with is that beginning of time means god exists.

Doomgaze: If he is a deist (ie, if he believes that god is responsible, which I'll point out he does NOT say in that article), then yes, he would believe in intelligent design. The name having design in it would imply what you're saying, but it actually just means that god had something to do with the creation of the universe or life. It can be applied to either. (I was going to agree with you, but I checked the dictionary definition)

However, I don't see what this has to do with proving intelligent design. All he's saying is that other people don't like the theory because it seems to imply intelligent design. This doesn't mean it's proof of it. Not at all. That's like finding a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow and calling it proof of leprechauns.

"Yes, but do they acknowledge the implication that we were created. (at least indirectly (mass was just created is what I mean by indirectly))"

Created does not equal created by god. You could say I believe we were created by evolution.

"Most things in the universe seem to be carefully balanced between being too large and too small. (either of which would be catastrophic for life)"

Try looking at it from another viewpoint. Instead of looking at things as too complex, or balanced to be created by anything other than god, thinking about things as chain reactions. Because of the properties of matter, energy, space, and time, there is no other way thing could possible exist. God didn't make the Earth round, the spinning motion of gravity when the solar system formed did. The Earth may seem in too perfect a position for life for it just to be coincidence, but it's merely the properties of the solar system that caused the conditions for life. I suppose you could argue that got designed the universe that way. I'm not explaining myself very well here either, so I hope you see what I mean.

"A vacuum isn't truly a vacuum at all - it is filled with "virtual particles" - that is, particles continuously popping into existence and then disappearing back out of existence. They always appear in pairs - a particle and an anti-particle, and they almost always immediately annhilate each other. Sometimes enough energy is imparted to these particles that they get pushed apart, and do not annihilate, thus becoming real particles (Hawking raditation from black holes is probably the most notable example of this). There is no net energy gain or loss, and so this still obeys the laws of thermodynamics."

Auronhart is right, things did have to exist for this to work. However, that's actually how I believe the sigularity mentioned in the Big Bang theory ceased to be a singularity. With all matter confined in infinite density, it's unavoidable that such a particle-antiparticle meeting would occur. Such a large amount of energy being released, in my theory at least, would cause the singularity to begin it's exansion. As the dimensions stretched, time and space fell back into place again. As a singularity, because of infinite mass, these were suspended. I'm forgetting a lot of quantum physics whatnot, so I'll get a better explaination once I get my book.

[Super Christ]

Virtual particles.

As long as the net gain or loss is zero, energy is conserved. Anyway, calling the idea that the universe itself is one of these quantum fluctuations a theory was perhaps a bit generous; it'd be more accurate to call it speculation, since there's no evidence for it. But it doesn't break any laws of physics.

[Emerald Aeris]

alright, I'll try again. Virtual particles don't exist on their own, they are a result of a quantum reaction. It's not particles coming from nothing, they're coming from energy (photons). It's energy turning into matter, not nothing turning into matter. It's called 'pair production'.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/apr14/virtual.html

[Auronhart]

Yes, I didn't disagree with that. What I disagree with is that beginning of time means god exists.

As long as the net gain or loss is zero, energy is conserved. Anyway, calling the idea that the universe itself is one of these quantum fluctuations a theory was perhaps a bit generous; it'd be more accurate to call it speculation, since there's no evidence for it. But it doesn't break any laws of physics.

It does if you have no energy.

alright, I'll try again. Virtual particles don't exist on their own, they are a result of a quantum reaction. It's not particles coming from nothing, they're coming from energy (photons). It's energy turning into matter, not nothing turning into matter. It's called 'pair production'.

Exactly, energy allows them to form.

Yes, I didn't disagree with that. What I disagree with is that beginning of time means god exists.

1. Matter, time, energy and space had a beginning. (this is the one Hawking showed)
2. Everything that has a beginning must be caused by something else (possibly plural).
Derived Premises
3. Matter, time, energy and space was caused by something.
Conclusion
Something (can be plural) existed before time began and caused the beginning of matter, time, space and energy, we call this being God. (or these beings Gods)

1. Conclusion from above
Now we have two possibilities.
2a. The "God" or "Gods" from above was caused by something else.
or
2b. The "God" or "Gods" from above was not caused by something else.
if 2b, then that will be our premise.
otherwise replace "God" or "Gods" with the being(s) that caused it.
eventually we will have a premise similar to 2b. (Rename the thing(s) that was not created God(s))
3. Everything that has a beginning must be caused by something else (possibly plural).
Derived Premise
4. "God" or "Gods" did not have a beginning.
Conclusion
"God" or "Gods" exists and did not have a beginning.
This may need some fine tuning, but it is pretty close.

As Doomgaze said, this could just imply a far superior race to ours, that exists in a universe that does not obey our rules, but all the evidence points to being(s) which have godlike powers.

[Emerald Aeris]

"1. Matter, time, energy and space had a beginning. (this is the one Hawking showed)
2. Everything that has a beginning must be caused by something else (possibly plural).
Derived Premises
3. Matter, time, energy and space was caused by something.
Conclusion
Something (can be plural) existed before time began and caused the beginning of matter, time, space and energy, we call this being God. (or these beings Gods)"

There are many other possibilities other than god created energy. You're just choosing it because it fits your beliefs, not because it's what the evidence indicates. The evidence indicates that time had a beginning, it indicates nothing about why it had a beginning (ie, occilating universe, a belief which recquires no god, the why being that the universe was contained in a singularity), or what caused it.

The evidence does not point to beings with godlike powers at all. It points to that time has a beginning. Concluding further is pure speculation.

[Auronhart]

There are many other possibilities other than god created energy. You're just choosing it because it fits your beliefs, not because it's what the evidence indicates. The evidence indicates that time had a beginning, it indicates nothing about why it had a beginning (ie, occilating universe, a belief which recquires no god, the why being that the universe was contained in a singularity), or what caused it.

Read this: http://www.facingthechallenge.org/oscillate.htm. (which talks about the idea of a oscillating universe)

The evidence does not point to beings with godlike powers at all. It points to that time has a beginning. Concluding further is pure speculation.

No it isn't, if time has an actual beginning, (includes oscillating universe is incorrect) then it does come up with the result that there must be at least one supernatural causal being.

[Doomgaze]

Why? A causal event, perhaps, but that by no means implies an intelligent being behind it.

[Auronhart]

Why? A causal event, perhaps, but that by no means implies an intelligent being behind it.

It requires an event(s), (which is inside of a another dimension in which time is either eternal or non-existent) but these event(s) must create time and space. It basically comes down to how imaginable it is to have a non-sentient object(s) (even in another dimension) causing time/energy. (funny, I just watched a show about string theory and speculation on higher dimensional membranes. Apparently, string theory would be able to find the existence of a higher dimension if it was successfully tested) I guess now we are back to the argument of whether we are here by random chance and some random higher dimensional event (not science) or by intelligent design. (not science either) At the very least, we have established that there is something (probably a higher dimension) that we do not understand out there.