Information - Natural or Intelligence?

[Philip]

Ken: Again; if the Singularity that expanded had an eternal existence, that would dispel the “design and orchestrated” idea as well won’t it.

NO it would not - which, after all this time, you clearly don't appear to understand! Eternalness ALONE of whatever pre-existed the Big Bang does not provide a solution to what occurred! As some aspect of something eternal would have to be massively intelligent to do what occurred. And what physics PROVE is that the early universe immediately began to form key building blocks of great sophistication in designs, functionalities, and cross-coordination - yes, ORCHESTRATION, on a massive scale, requiring stupendous intelligence. And non-intelligent / blind things are simply incapable of this. So, you deny two things that are irrational - that what occurred did not require intelligence or that they didn't immediately begin to assemble and behave with breathtaking precision and coordination. And if you don't at least believe the latter, then you don't accept what physics overwhelmingly asserts occurred!

[Kenny]

Ken: Again; if the Singularity that expanded had an eternal existence, that would dispel the “design and orchestrated” idea as well won’t it.

NO it would not - which, after all this time, you clearly don't appear to understand!
Eternalness ALONE of whatever pre-existed the Big Bang does not provide a solution to what occurred! As some aspect of something eternal would have to be massively intelligent to do what occurred. And what physics PROVE is that the early universe immediately began to form key building blocks of great sophistication in designs, functionalities, and cross-coordination - yes, ORCHESTRATION, on a massive scale, requiring stupendous intelligence. And non-intelligent / blind things are simply incapable of this. So, you deny two things that are irrational - that what occurred did not require intelligence or that they didn't immediately begin to assemble and behave with breathtaking precision and coordination. And if you don't at least believe the latter, then you don't accept what physics overwhelmingly asserts occurred!

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.

This model does not include an intelligence that preceded it, yet you insist that it did! Why would you do this? Why would you take an accepted scientific theory, pervert and distort it in a way so that it is no longer science, and then present it as if it IS science! Why? Why not just dismiss the entire theory (like a lot of you guys do) and promote something like Creation? At least that way you can use it right outta the box without tinkering with it, and you can present it as it was intended to be presented; unlike what you do with the Big Bang Theory.
Seems to me you have two choices;

*Make up your own theory
*Use somebody else's theory.

If you are going to use somebody else's theory, use THEIR theory, don’t use part of their theory, pervert and distort it by mixing in your own flavor, and then try to present it as still their theory; you would be better off just making up your own!
Remember we spoke earlier about the illusion of knowledge being more dangerous than ignorance? Think about it.

[Philip]

Ken: This model does not include an intelligence that preceded it, yet you insist that it did! Why would you do this?

Because of what it asserts happened, Ken! And what happened required intelligence! Now, the building blocks, quarks, anti-quarks, all of those first things - whether or not physicists have the sequence perfect or not, they do know what essential things and building blocks were required to form the universe as well as made things possible, and for both then and now. And that is so complex that a century of studying and testing it still challenges our planet's best scientific minds - THAT shows exactly why a necessary intelligence has been revealed.

Ken: Why would you take an accepted scientific theory, pervert and distort it in a way so that it is no longer science, and then present it as if it IS science!

Ken, I've only reflected what physicists say happened. But commons sense from observation and logic tells us that what happened could not self assemble and begin its coordination without an intelligence guiding it. Now, science can't tell us more than what its best testing and analysis reveal would have been necessary to produce what exists then and now. It can also calculate a time for the Big Bang by inverse calculations of the expansion. But with a century (and more) of observations, science shows no such capabilities of unintelligent things ever producing even simple such things. It matters not a bit if they were merely eternal - but you don't seem to grasp that. Add those up and common sense and intelligence tells us the universe, from it's very beginning minutes, was designed and guided. Without intelligence, there would have been no cognition, coordination, awareness, planning, etc. But you believe simple, non-intelligent things produced things our best minds and machines still cannot but barely understand. We can't build a cell, etc. So, why do you believe blind things can do the miraculous?

And, Ken, I'm not the one talking about eternal cells preceding conditions to support them. So don't tell me about misrepresenting science, LOL.

[PaulSacramento]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. In the analogy about X & Y I gave in post #82, "X" represented cells, "Y" represented God.

Ken,

Your "analogy" that you posted in post #82, here:

Consider the possibilities concerning “X”&“Y”. There is empirical evidence and scientific proof concerning the existence of X, but no empirical evidence nor scientific proof concerning the existence of Y.

1. “X” was never created because it always existed.
2. “X” was created by “Y”

This is a false dichotomy.

Why must it only be 1 or 2? By your definition of create, God making something from nothing, why must cells be created from nothing, and not from existing material?

If God create materials from nothing, then he uses those materials to assemble “X”, that is the same as God creating “X” from nothing.

I thought you said that you were talking about cells?

Why couldn't God have used something that existed, to create cells?

Why must God have popped cells out of thin air?

Are you saying there are things of the material world that God did not create?

You really need to learn far more about God before you post things with such vigor.

The bible is clear that God didn't create everything from nothing.
Like At Genesis -

11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind.

How long have you been here? have you learned so little ??

[PaulSacramento]

Lets be clear that the Big Bang theory simply states that, over 13 billion years ago, that what we call the universe began to expand.
We do NOT know what was there "before", but the hypothesis is a quantum singularity.
So we KNOW that the universe started to expand over 13 billion years ago and is still expanding and we THINK it started from a singularity and we do NOT KNOW what caused the singularity to expand.

[Philip]

Paul: The bible is clear that God didn't create everything from nothing.
Like At Genesis -

11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind.

It depends what you mean by creating from nothing - as the first created things on the earth, according to the Bible, did not previously exist - so, from nothing God essentially spoke all created things into existence. The seed and plant issue - kind of like the chicken and the egg - God undoubtedly created certain things first - where previously - there were no such things! And this is true whether one asserts some form of evolution or other method He used. The fact that the offspring of animals and the seeds from trees and plants later continued their cycles doesn't change this.

[Kenny]

Ken: This model does not include an intelligence that preceded it, yet you insist that it did! Why would you do this?

Because of what it asserts happened, Ken! And what happened required intelligence!

If that were true, cosmologists would have made it a part of the theory. do you know more than they know?

Now, the building blocks, quarks, anti-quarks, all of those first things - whether or not physicists have the sequence perfect or not, they do know what essential things and building blocks were required to form the universe as well as made things possible, and for both then and now.

Do physicists claim intelligence is required? Then why do you?

Ken: Why would you take an accepted scientific theory, pervert and distort it in a way so that it is no longer science, and then present it as if it IS science!

Ken, I've only reflected what physicists say happened.

No; you claim intelligence is involved; something physicists do not say happened.

But commons sense from observation and logic tells us that what happened could not self assemble and begin its coordination without an intelligence guiding it.

then how come Cosmologists don't agree with you concerning this issue?

Now, science can't tell us more than what its best testing and analysis reveal would have been necessary to produce what exists then and now. It can also calculate a time for the Big Bang by inverse calculations of the expansion. But with a century (and more) of observations, science shows no such capabilities of unintelligent things ever producing even simple such things.

You wouldn't be implying that because science has never seen it, it is therefore impossible would you?

It matters not a bit if they were merely eternal - but you don't seem to grasp that.

Neither does Cosmologists. Humm....

Add those up and common sense and intelligence tells us the universe, from it's very beginning minutes, was designed and guided. Without intelligence, there would have been no cognition, coordination, awareness, planning, etc. But you believe simple, non-intelligent things produced things our best minds and machines still cannot but barely understand. We can't build a cell, etc. So, why do you believe blind things can do the miraculous?

I never said they could.

And, Ken, I'm not the one talking about eternal cells preceding conditions to support them. So don't tell me about misrepresenting science, LOL.

I've been clear from the start, there are not my views, these are just things that sound possible to me. You are the one making claims; not me.

[Kenny]

Ken,

Your "analogy" that you posted in post #82, here:


This is a false dichotomy.

Why must it only be 1 or 2? By your definition of create, God making something from nothing, why must cells be created from nothing, and not from existing material?

If God create materials from nothing, then he uses those materials to assemble “X”, that is the same as God creating “X” from nothing.

I thought you said that you were talking about cells?

Why couldn't God have used something that existed, to create cells?

Why must God have popped cells out of thin air?

Are you saying there are things of the material world that God did not create?

You really need to learn far more about God before you post things with such vigor.

The bible is clear that God didn't create everything from nothing.

I never said he did; I asked is there anything of the material world that God did not create.

Like At Genesis -

11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind.

How long have you been here? have you learned so little ??

You aren't going to answer my question are you. Again; is there anything of the material world that God didn't create? (a yes or no answer would be just fine)

[RickD]

If God create materials from nothing, then he uses those materials to assemble “X”, that is the same as God creating “X” from nothing.

I thought you said that you were talking about cells?

Why couldn't God have used something that existed, to create cells?

Why must God have popped cells out of thin air?

Are you saying there are things of the material world that God did not create?

No Ken, I was responding to what YOU said.

So again; if God created materials from nothing, and used those materials to assemble cells, that would be the same as God creating cells from nothing.

No.

[Philip]

Ken: This model does not include an intelligence that preceded it, yet you insist that it did! Why would you do this?

Philip: Because of what it asserts happened, Ken! And what happened required intelligence!

If that were true, cosmologists would have made it a part of the theory. do you know more than they know?

Cosmologists have always wondered about the Cause and how - which isn't PART of the theory, which only seeks to track what physically occurred. Of course, many physicists DO believe in theistic creation of some kind - so your answer is just more of your half-baked game of dodgeball!

Ken: Do physicists claim intelligence is required? Then why do you?

Why DON'T you believe intelligence is required? I can only think of one reason why not!

Ken: You wouldn't be implying that because science has never seen it, it is therefore impossible would you?

Well, they certainly would have no reason to believe it otherwise possible. Because if they do believe in an uncreated / uncaused universe, they certainly don't believe it based upon something they've never seen - right? So, those believing, despite the entire history of science never having observed such - well, they sure don't believe this based upon scientific measurements, data or observations!

Philip: We can't build a cell, etc. So, why do you believe blind things can do the miraculous?

Ken: I never said they could.

Sure you believe it possible - because you've said the universe's creation required no intelligence - and you've asserted that prolifically. So, are blind / non-thinking things intelligent or not? How could they become so? WHY? They have zero abilities. And we've already established that only living beings or creatures have any intelligent capabilities.

Ken, your belief that an intelligence was not required to begin the universe and life only has to do with one thing - and it sure ain't science! It's your unbelief in God! You believe in the astounding, massive number of things that can rightfully be described as miraculously having occurred without an overseeing intelligence, but yet you don't believe a God or god with such ability could exist. That's exceptionally contradictory - and self-serving! Remember, just because you don't know, doesn't believe it ain't so - isn't that what you're so fond of saying?

[Kenny]

I thought you said that you were talking about cells?

Why couldn't God have used something that existed, to create cells?

Why must God have popped cells out of thin air?

Are you saying there are things of the material world that God did not create?

No Ken, I was responding to what YOU said.

So again; if God created materials from nothing, and used those materials to assemble cells, that would be the same as God creating cells from nothing.

No.

How is it different?

[RickD]

Are you saying there are things of the material world that God did not create?

No Ken, I was responding to what YOU said.

So again; if God created materials from nothing, and used those materials to assemble cells, that would be the same as God creating cells from nothing.

No.

How is it different?

Let's assume that God created some kind of "materials", or matter from nothing. Then He eventually, perhaps millions or billions of years later, created living cells from existing matter.

Can you see how that would be different?

[Kenny]

Ken: This model does not include an intelligence that preceded it, yet you insist that it did! Why would you do this?

Philip: Because of what it asserts happened, Ken! And what happened required intelligence!

If that were true, cosmologists would have made it a part of the theory. do you know more than they know?

Cosmologists have always wondered about the Cause and how - which isn't PART of the theory,

And WHY isn’t it a part of their theory??? Because they don’t know. Just like me, they admit they don’t have an answer.

Ken: Do physicists claim intelligence is required? Then why do you?

Why DON'T you believe intelligence is required? I can only think of one reason why not!

Why not? Really??? If that is your standard, that's fine! Just don't go around pretending as if your standards are based on scientific evidence.

Philip: We can't build a cell, etc. So, why do you believe blind things can do the miraculous?

Ken: I never said they could.

Sure you believe it possible - because you've said the universe's creation required no intelligence - and you've asserted that prolifically.

No; I never said the Universe was created; that is what you keep insisting.

Ken, your belief that an intelligence was not required to begin the universe and life only has to do with one thing - and it sure ain't science! It's your unbelief in God!

Philip, your belief that an intelligence was required to begin the Universe and life only has to do with one thing- and it sure ain’t science! It’s your belief in God!

[Kenny]

No Ken, I was responding to what YOU said.

So again; if God created materials from nothing, and used those materials to assemble cells, that would be the same as God creating cells from nothing.

No.

How is it different?

Let's assume that God created some kind of "materials", or matter from nothing. Then He eventually, perhaps millions or billions of years later, created living cells from existing matter.

Can you see how that would be different?

Okay; I think it is a bit of a semantics thing; but it still doesn’t change the point I was making back on post #82.

[RickD]

So again; if God created materials from nothing, and used those materials to assemble cells, that would be the same as God creating cells from nothing.

No.

How is it different?

Let's assume that God created some kind of "materials", or matter from nothing. Then He eventually, perhaps millions or billions of years later, created living cells from existing matter.

Can you see how that would be different?

Okay; I think it is a bit of a semantics thing; but it still doesn’t change the point I was making back on post #82.

It shows that your logic is faulty. Unless you have some kind of evidence that X, aka cells, aka biological life, has always existed.