Where do Proponents Of Intelligent Design Propose the Designer Came From?

[Lighthouse]

Only the known laws break down.

Another name for singularity is "we don't know" [Neil Degrasse Tyson]




My guess, is that a super massive black hole expanded creating our universe, and that just because we cannot describe the substance of a singularity, some label it nothing.




Thank you! you to

Good point, only the known laws breakdown. Look forward to any potential unknown laws becoming known if they do.

I'm glad you mentioned that about singularities, very much agree.

Intriguing hypothesis, black holes are pretty darn interesting. Have been reading on Hawking's newer profound statements regarding those along with quantum mechanics on black holes...seems that can apply to what you've said, as information and radiation can escape black holes which may reflect on the initial supermassive black hole you present.

Do you believe it's substance or non-substance changing form into substance?

Thanks man!

 

[outhouse]

Do you believe it's substance or non-substance changing form into substance?

Heres my view which is as much a guess as a guess can get also applies to gravity. Its my TOE.

We know atoms are hollow, it is a visual mind screw that object are solid to our 3 dimensional brains.

I believe/imagine the atoms are broken down to electrons and protons and separated, not any smaller in a BH. I believe they are squished together causing the unknown reaction in the singularity. Basically the space has been removed and we have multiple small elements in different degrees depending on where they reside in the singularity. Elements meaning not matter as we know it, but still matter. An unknown atomic structure that is still an energy plant like a sun but on an extreme scale of gravity that changes atomic structures. Sun equals atoms still being able to hold their typical structure. BH meaning gravity so strong it has broken down atomic structure.

So take that and I address gravity as being created from the combination of dark matter/energy as being the fabric of our space, and that inside of atoms before they are broken down this fabric is naturally compressed, and in that when enough are compiled together we can measure the weak force. The weak force is cause by quantum entanglement, as when the fabric of space is compressed even if just slightly in an atom, pulls its counter parts of the fabric outside the atom towards the atom. The force so weak it Is not really measurable on its own. But with large masses of atoms this stretching of the fabric can be measured.

The reason a BH shows much more gravity then a sun is because as the space of the atoms has been reduced to nothing, the fabric of space is puled inwards exponentially. [if I worded that properly] then just compiled atoms.

Just my imagination.

Thanks man!

Your welcome. I wish you could have been here a few years ago, we had a buy here "Poly" who was really sharp.

I enjoy this but my knowledge is really limited.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I assume a naturalistic explanation based on the fact that everything so far has had a natural explanation and nothing has had a supernatural one. It is not logical to all of a sudden assume that there is a supernatural one in this instance just because we do not yet have a naturalistic answer. The correct response would be "I don't know" rather than making up a supernatural answer without a shred of good evidence to support it.

The correct response would be "I don't know"

I assume a naturalistic explanation

which is it?

 

[Lighthouse]

Heres my view which is as much a guess as a guess can get also applies to gravity. Its my TOE.

We know atoms are hollow, it is a visual mind screw that object are solid to our 3 dimensional brains.

I believe/imagine the atoms are broken down to electrons and protons and separated, not any smaller in a BH. I believe they are squished together causing the unknown reaction in the singularity. Basically the space has been removed and we have multiple small elements in different degrees depending on where they reside in the singularity. Elements meaning not matter as we know it, but still matter. An unknown atomic structure that is still an energy plant like a sun but on an extreme scale of gravity that changes atomic structures. Sun equals atoms still being able to hold their typical structure. BH meaning gravity so strong it has broken down atomic structure.

So take that and I address gravity as being created from the combination of dark matter/energy as being the fabric of our space, and that inside of atoms before they are broken down this fabric is naturally compressed, and in that when enough are compiled together we can measure the weak force. The weak force is cause by quantum entanglement, as when the fabric of space is compressed even if just slightly in an atom, pulls its counter parts of the fabric outside the atom towards the atom. The force so weak it Is not really measurable on its own. But with large masses of atoms this stretching of the fabric can be measured.

The reason a BH shows much more gravity then a sun is because as the space of the atoms has been reduced to nothing, the fabric of space is puled inwards exponentially. [if I worded that properly] then just compiled atoms.

Just my imagination.





Your welcome. I wish you could have been here a few years ago, we had a buy here "Poly" who was really sharp.

I enjoy this but my knowledge is really limited.

Thank you for sharing that, completely harmless putting our own hypotheses together and could be's.
With the Hadron collider, scientists were able to create a mini-bang by removing electrons from atoms and having them travel in opposite directions at ridiculous speeds. I could imagine a bunch of atoms bunched together and somehow doing that through some sort of ionic bonding, colliding, separating, nuclear fusion, and fission.
Agree, dark energy and dark matter seem to be very intriguing fabrics throughout space causing compression(gravity) and expansion.

I am pretty sure that you worded that correctly.
It's amazing the amount of empty space in just a tiny atom. If a hydrogen atom were the size of the Earth, the proton at its center would be 600 feet.

Always nice having wise and/or sharp minds around.

Very interesting and again, thanks for sharing.

 

[outhouse]

It's amazing the amount of empty space in just a tiny atom. If a hydrogen atom were the size of the Earth, the proton at its center would be 600 feet.

Thank you. Most people don't have the basic conception of the empty space on the atom.

I learned a grain of salt compared to a tennis court.

Very interesting and again, thanks for sharing.

Simply and full of mistakes, and I didn't use any temperature models, but it is fun try and imagine this in simple non mathematical language

Burt again, thank you.

 

[`mud]

If I was a proton looking outwards,
what would I see ?
~
'mud

 

[Milton Platt]

which is it?

Yeah, that was confusing, wasn't it?
I was trying (and not succeeding) to say that everything we have explained has a natural explaination, and nothing so far seems to have a supernatural explaination, so when we have no explanation yet for a particular thing, it doesn't make sense to simply insert a supernatural cause as a filler. Why not just wait until we can come up with a reasonable explanation based on the best evidence?

 

[Etritonakin]

In the following, I use the word "creator" to mean that which creates, but is not necessarily aware that it does.



If we change the question to "Who created creators?", many would answer that creators -such as man -were not created, but evolved -and so did not need a creator.

I believe there is some truth to that -but that it may not be applied correctly. It is a good point -but pointed the wrong way.

It seems more logical that our creator did not need a creator -because our creator was all that preceded us, essentially self-evolved and essentially became all that now is.

Even if you do not believe our creator to be self-aware, our creator is all that came before us. We, as individuals, are small parts of all that is.

We DID require a creator, because we are only a part of all that is -and because we are a product of that which came before.
Thinking along those lines, some might say that the evolution based on the elements is our creator -but something created the elements -they have not always existed.

THE creator would not require a creator, because THE creator would be the ORIGINAL. THE creator would be EVERYTHING.

THE creator would be/have been the most basic components which became what now is -would be all that became what is -the most basic potential to be what is and can be - all that is and can be -including us.

THE creator would have created itself and all things as it created itself -and, if self-aware, would have created himself as he created all things -as all things would give reference and definition to the self. Consciousness and matter would be inextricably intertwined -mutually inherent.

What could be known if there was nothing to know -and must not a consciousness be made of something?

The above is not contrary even to scripture (except the self-awareness part. again -I do not claim to know the exact nature of God -but am considering the matter).

Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Isa 33:10 Now will I rise, saith the LORD; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself.

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

[Lighthouse]

If I was a proton looking outwards,
what would I see ?
~
'mud

Your three best buddies...protons, electrons, and neutrons?

 

[Etritonakin]

I was just wondering if one day there might be a song such as "It's a small universe after all"

probably not -definitely not very soon

 

[Etritonakin]

In the following, I use the word "creator" to mean that which creates, but is not necessarily aware that it does.



If we change the question to "Who created creators?", many would answer that creators -such as man -were not created, but evolved -and so did not need a creator.

I believe there is some truth to that -but that it may not be applied correctly. It is a good point -but pointed the wrong way.

It seems more logical that our creator did not need a creator -because our creator was all that preceded us, essentially self-evolved and essentially became all that now is.

Even if you do not believe our creator to be self-aware, our creator is all that came before us. We, as individuals, are small parts of all that is.

We DID require a creator, because we are only a part of all that is -and because we are a product of that which came before.
Thinking along those lines, some might say that the evolution based on the elements is our creator -but something created the elements -they have not always existed.

THE creator would not require a creator, because THE creator would be the ORIGINAL. THE creator would be EVERYTHING.

THE creator would be/have been the most basic components which became what now is -would be all that became what is -the most basic potential to be what is and can be - all that is and can be -including us.

THE creator would have created itself and all things as it created itself -and, if self-aware, would have created himself as he created all things -as all things would give reference and definition to the self. Consciousness and matter would be inextricably intertwined -mutually inherent.

What could be known if there was nothing to know -and must not a consciousness be made of something?

The above is not contrary even to scripture (except the self-awareness part. again -I do not claim to know the exact nature of God -but am considering the matter).

Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Isa 33:10 Now will I rise, saith the LORD; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself.

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

From my experience, some religious people seem to think that the subject of the origin or nature of God should be avoided -but there are scriptures relating to the subject.

My questioning whether almighty God was once essentially more simple might be seen as disrespectful or blasphemous -but if God was before all things, and the one by who all things consist, then it stands to reason that he is now almighty over more of what he is -and was once almighty over less of what he is -or that he is now more complex, having made himself so.

If of the increase of the government of Christ under the government of God -there will be no end, then God will be almighty over more -and is now almighty over less than will be.

 

[Parsimony]

If I was a proton looking outwards,
what would I see ?
~
'mud

Probably nothing, since protons are much smaller than the wavelength of visible light.

 

[RRex]

Ahh, the chicken v. the egg scenario.

The Top Dog, The Big Cheese will remain inscrutable and, therefore, we won't know until we die.

Even then perhaps not.

 

[averageJOE]

Ahh, the chicken v. the egg scenario.

The Top Dog, The Big Cheese will remain inscrutable and, therefore, we won't know until we die.

Even then perhaps not.

Everyone already knows that eggs were around millions of years before chickens.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..It seems more logical that our creator did not need a creator -because our creator was all that preceded us..

Sounds good to me .. naturally mankind cannot know everything .. most of us can't remember when we first became conscious and/or what might have preceded it..

That does not automatically mean that there is not a 'greater reality' from whence we came.
I wouldn't be surprised if we will remember more about it after our death .. but for now, many things are 'hidden' .. this present reality is finite and defined mainly by physical senses

 

[Etritonakin]

Sounds good to me .. naturally mankind cannot know everything .. most of us can't remember when we first became conscious and/or what might have preceded it..

That does not automatically mean that there is not a 'greater reality' from whence we came.
I wouldn't be surprised if we will remember more about it after our death .. but for now, many things are 'hidden' .. this present reality is finite and defined mainly by physical senses

We do see things from our perspective -and may not be able to comprehend everything.

 

[gnostic]

Sounds good to me .. naturally mankind cannot know everything .. most of us can't remember when we first became conscious and/or what might have preceded it..

That does not automatically mean that there is not a 'greater reality' from whence we came.
I wouldn't be surprised if we will remember more about it after our death .. but for now, many things are 'hidden' .. this present reality is finite and defined mainly by physical senses

We do see things from our perspective -and may not be able to comprehend everything.

More often than not, I find when religious people trying (some religious people do this, not all of them)...trying to twist their scriptures or beliefs with science, their perspectives are often (if not always) wrong.

The problem with such mixture, is that the science they are trying to use, become pseudoscience.

There are lots of scientists who are believers, but who can science and their religion separate, so that their personal belief don't interfere with their works in science. That's why I wrote "some religious people".

 

[Milton Platt]

If creaction is nessesary, who created the creator?

Many ID enthusiast claim that evolution is incomplete becuase it does not explain the origin of the first life (which is not evolution's purpose) and thus insist that it should have no scientific standing (using the same 'logic' one could say that Gravity is not true becuase we can not solidly identifiy it's source [though Gravitons are very likely, similar to how Abiogenesis is very likely]). I therfore ask these ID proponents as to where the "Designer" originates. Many Creactionist and ID proponents say that as a complex universe we need a complex being to design it. However if this is the case then why wouldn't an even more complex being be needed to make such a complex being?

Unclear on the graviton thing....what is that? I thought gravity was actually the bending of the fabric of space.....but of course, there is the question of why would mass bend space...is that where gravitons come into play?

 

[Milton Platt]

And yet, I'm always looking for the evidence, yet never see it. I realize that some people are susceptible to semantical tricks, such as using words like "preternatural." Howver, I've never been one to be fooled by rhetoric or semantics.

Kudos!!! "Just the facts, Ma'am...."

[Edit] showing my age by thinking everybody would recognize that phrase. Joe Friday on the original Dragnet show....in glorious black and white on a fuzzy TV.

 

[Milton Platt]

He has been asked numerous times by myself to present his math, yet so far my requests have been completely ignored.

I think that math is also called a "scientific wild-assed guess".