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

[Tomorrows_Child]

Science now claims that the universe came from something which is eternal and exists beyond out realms of time and space. So the idea of a creator not needing a creator is now being pushed by science itself but rather than God, they suet he term, a field of energy lol

 

[Milton Platt]

Science now claims that the universe came from something which is eternal and exists beyond out realms of time and space. So the idea of a creator not needing a creator is now being pushed by science itself but rather than God, they suet he term, a field of energy lol

I am not entirely understanding your post. Do you have a link to the paper that states this, or to the extract? If not, that is fine, but then provide some more detail. I would love to delve into this. Also, how is saying that something may have existed for an eternity the same as saying a creator existed? They did not use that term. They are not redfining your god as an energy field, you are trying to redefine an energy field to be a god.

I am sure this is at best a hypothesis, and one of many, put forth to try and begin to make sense of a thing we can never have direct knowledge of. If there is ever enough evidence to bring it to the level of a theory, then you can call it a claim.

Also, anything that exists outside of time cannot be said to have existed for any length of time. There was no time for it to exist in. You cannot claim to be speaking of time as we understand it because both time and space (which are two parts of a whole) began with the expansion of the singularity. When you can demonstrate that there is a place that exists in which there is no time or space and that beings can exist in that place, you will be the toast of the town.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..anything that exists outside of time cannot be said to have existed for any length of time. There was no time for it to exist in. You cannot claim to be speaking of time as we understand it because both time and space (which are two parts of a whole) began with the expansion of the singularity. When you can demonstrate that there is a place that exists in which there is no time or space and that beings can exist in that place, you will be the toast of the town.

Clearly not physical beings, by definition..
Regards the measurement of time outside of time&space, we clearly need a new way of measuring it .. that would be something along the lines of 'philosophical time' which is not physically measurable

 

[Milton Platt]

Clearly not physical beings, by definition..
Regards the measurement of time outside of time&space, we clearly need a new way of measuring it .. that would be something along the lines of 'philosophical time' which is not physically measurable

We have only one example of time. It would be necessary to demonstrate that there is some other kind of time. Let me know how that works out. As far as we know, time is linear and is actually a part of something called the space-time continuum.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We have only one example of time..

You'd be surprised..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Time has long been a major subject of study in religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars. Nevertheless, diverse fields such as business, industry, sports, the sciences, and the performing arts all incorporate some notion of time into their respective measuring systems.

Some simple definitions of time include "time is what clocks measure", which is a problematically vague and self-referential definition that utilizes the device used to measure the subject as the definition of the subject, and "time is what keeps everything from happening at once", which is without substantive meaning in the absence of the definition of simultaneity in the context of the limitations of human sensation, observation of events, and the perception of such events

So there you have it .. time is not just a scientific definition at all.

 

[Milton Platt]

You'd be surprised..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Time has long been a major subject of study in religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars. Nevertheless, diverse fields such as business, industry, sports, the sciences, and the performing arts all incorporate some notion of time into their respective measuring systems.

Some simple definitions of time include "time is what clocks measure", which is a problematically vague and self-referential definition that utilizes the device used to measure the subject as the definition of the subject, and "time is what keeps everything from happening at once", which is without substantive meaning in the absence of the definition of simultaneity in the context of the limitations of human sensation, observation of events, and the perception of such events

So there you have it .. time is not just a scientific definition at all.

An interesting Wikipedia article. I think that the problem with most definitions is they are only a description of our perception and/or use of time. Those are helpful in our lives, but do no tell us what time actually is. Einstein tried to get past that. He said that time was actually a part of space and visa-versa. He called it the space time continuum. Changing one affects the other. Still not something you could easily get your head around, but closer to the target.

It is fun to hypothesize about being "outside of time" or "outside of space", (which may turn out to be the same thing) but we cannot assume this state exists in reality. That is the stuff of philosophers......and of course theoretical physics.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

I am not entirely understanding your post. Do you have a link to the paper that states this, or to the extract? If not, that is fine, but then provide some more detail. I would love to delve into this. Also, how is saying that something may have existed for an eternity the same as saying a creator existed? They did not use that term. They are not redfining your god as an energy field, you are trying to redefine an energy field to be a god.

I am sure this is at best a hypothesis, and one of many, put forth to try and begin to make sense of a thing we can never have direct knowledge of. If there is ever enough evidence to bring it to the level of a theory, then you can call it a claim.

Also, anything that exists outside of time cannot be said to have existed for any length of time. There was no time for it to exist in. You cannot claim to be speaking of time as we understand it because both time and space (which are two parts of a whole) began with the expansion of the singularity. When you can demonstrate that there is a place that exists in which there is no time or space and that beings can exist in that place, you will be the toast of the town.

Look, I'm not going to post stuff on the request of every tom, dick and harry. If you don't know the basics of modern science and are still an atheist, that's not my fault.

In terms of this idea of an eternal field of energy, which is the origins of the universe, I'm relating it to the verses of the Quran, which were revealed over 1400 years ago, describing God as eternal, with no beginning or end, neither created, nor destroyed. This is the same as the definition physicists have decided to use to describe their "field", especially the last part. This is science once again proving the Quran and making atheists nervous. But it's ok, keep believing what you like.

 

[Milton Platt]

Look, I'm not going to post stuff on the request of every tom, dick and harry. If you don't know the basics of modern science and are still an atheist, that's not my fault.

In terms of this idea of an eternal field of energy, which is the origins of the universe, I'm relating it to the verses of the Quran, which were revealed over 1400 years ago, describing God as eternal, with no beginning or end, neither created, nor destroyed. This is the same as the definition physicists have decided to use to describe their "field", especially the last part. This is science once again proving the Quran and making atheists nervous. But it's ok, keep believing what you like.

As I said, enterpreting god to be a field of energy is baloney. There is energy in my cellphone battery....is that god?

Theoretical physics is not "the basics of science". I did not ask you to post an entire scientifec treatise. I asked you for a link. You don't have it, do you?

The quran does not make atheists nervous except when someone uses it to justify killing other people and subjugating women.

 

[Etritonakin]

We are designers -and we are said to be made in the image and likeness of God -so our origin would be at least similar.

That is not to say God is not "eternal" -but God is also defined by his actions. If God is the one by who all things consist, then at least his form has changed.

He would be the who/that which always existed -becoming more intricate.

We are made of an arrangement of atoms -which were caused by what we call the big bang.

If God had anything we might call an origin, it would be known by tracing events backward in what we call time -to find the most simple state which had the potential to be all that now is.

As time would not really apply before a first event, "eternal" would still apply.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Milton Platt]

You'd be surprised..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Time has long been a major subject of study in religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars. Nevertheless, diverse fields such as business, industry, sports, the sciences, and the performing arts all incorporate some notion of time into their respective measuring systems.

Some simple definitions of time include "time is what clocks measure", which is a problematically vague and self-referential definition that utilizes the device used to measure the subject as the definition of the subject, and "time is what keeps everything from happening at once", which is without substantive meaning in the absence of the definition of simultaneity in the context of the limitations of human sensation, observation of events, and the perception of such events

So there you have it .. time is not just a scientific definition at all.

I did not say time can only be described in one wau. I said we only have an example of one kind of time. All the definitions we use are describing the same thing in a different way, not describing a different thing.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I did not say time can only be described in one wau. I said we only have an example of one kind of time. All the definitions we use are describing the same thing in a different way, not describing a different thing.

I'm not sure about that .. philosophical time is not defined in the same way as physical time..

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm not sure about that .. philosophical time is not defined in the same way as physical time..

Genesis does not mention anything about philisophy......it is presented as an account of how the universe and life was created. It is religious dogma, not a treatise on philisophical concepts. Even if you want to philosiphize about time, it is still the same time that everyone else references. Just another way of looking at it. Philosophers do not have two different clocks to consult everytime they want to know the time of day.

 

[Etritonakin]

I'm not sure about that .. philosophical time is not defined in the same way as physical time..

I'm not sure about it, either

 

[`mud]

Even when a clock is dead stopped,
it's 'now' twice a day, for a micro second.
~
Remember.....it's never 'now' anywhere !
Kiss 'now' forever gone, 'cause' it's all relative !
~
'mud

 

[Milton Platt]

Even when a clock is dead stopped,
it's 'now' twice a day, for a micro second.
~
Remember.....it's never 'now' anywhere !
Kiss 'now' forever gone, 'cause' it's all relative !
~
'mud

Actually when a clock is dead stopped, it is the correct time twice per day (unless it is a 24 hr clock). It is always now.

 

[Milton Platt]

We are designers -and we are said to be made in the image and likeness of God -so our origin would be at least similar.

That is not to say God is not "eternal" -but God is also defined by his actions. If God is the one by who all things consist, then at least his form has changed.

He would be the who/that which always existed -becoming more intricate.

We are made of an arrangement of atoms -which were caused by what we call the big bang.

If God had anything we might call an origin, it would be known by tracing events backward in what we call time -to find the most simple state which had the potential to be all that now is.

As time would not really apply before a first event, "eternal" would still apply.

Just some thoughts.

Well, no reason to assume a god exists, in the first place. But the word eternal is an expression of time. You cannot say something exists outside of time and call it eternal. As far as we know, time is a necessary component of existence.
Explain how something can exist without existing for a time.

 

[`mud]

'NOW' is always in the future,
and never exists.
~
'mud

 

[leibowde84]

Science now claims that the universe came from something which is eternal and exists beyond out realms of time and space. So the idea of a creator not needing a creator is now being pushed by science itself but rather than God, they suet he term, a field of energy lol

What scientific theory are you referring to? I am not familiar with it. There are hypotheses, but by saying "science claims", you must be pointing to a consensus on a theory of some kind.

 

[leibowde84]

Clearly not physical beings, by definition..
Regards the measurement of time outside of time&space, we clearly need a new way of measuring it .. that would be something along the lines of 'philosophical time' which is not physically measurable

If it isn't physically measurable, it is completely unreasonable to expect science to consider it. Just as it is absurd to expect science to consider the soul or God, for which there is a complete absence of verifiable evidence.

 

[leibowde84]

Look, I'm not going to post stuff on the request of every tom, dick and harry. If you don't know the basics of modern science and are still an atheist, that's not my fault.

In terms of this idea of an eternal field of energy, which is the origins of the universe, I'm relating it to the verses of the Quran, which were revealed over 1400 years ago, describing God as eternal, with no beginning or end, neither created, nor destroyed. This is the same as the definition physicists have decided to use to describe their "field", especially the last part. This is science once again proving the Quran and making atheists nervous. But it's ok, keep believing what you like.

What is the scientific theory you are referring to? Or was that just a lie? Can you provide a link to the theory? Without that, I have to assume you are being dishonest, bolstering your claim on false assumptions about scientific consensus.