Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[KBC1963]

Of course they have! Interesting articles. But we all know that scientists have different opinions. I would be very interested in any articles of this quality supporting your theory of "intelligent design". The first thing I see in Google when I put in "intelligent design" is "Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Could you point me to some papers by reputable scientists providing argumentation and evidence for the existence of this intelligent designer?

When did the conversation change from a discussion about finite and infinite causality to the theory of ID?

 

[KBC1963]

You didn't ask me anything, but posed this issue to another. I offered my response to what you wrote (not that the member you addressed couldn't have done so at least as well). You made certain statements in an open debate forum, I responded, and you took one tiny part of my response out of context in order to apply it to a situation I never intended (as was obvious given what I responded t0>
No, I didn't, as I don't know what "inferred emergence" means. And you didn't address emergence, but provided an inaccurate description of the nature of QFT zero-point-energy/vacuum states.
I didn't ask a question. I gave you an answer, you apparently thought I referred to something I didn't, and have not responded to what I answered.

Emergence, downward causation, feedbacks, synchronization, closure to efficient causation (functional processes with causal efficacy) which is similar to closed causal loops, CTCs, acausality (as in the nonlocal synchronization of quantum systems or the emergence of both causally efficacious "virtual" particles and the emergence of actual particles out of nothing), etc..

Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light
A vacuum might seem like empty space, but scientists have discovered a new way to seemingly get something from that nothingness (Emergence)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/

Does Quantum Field Theory allow the Universe to emerge from nothing?
http://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_Quantum_Field_Theory_allow_the_Universe_to_emerge_from_nothing

If you don't feel I am responding to your post correctly then restate exactly what you mean to say.

 

[KBC1963]

The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code
...As the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out. A statistically strong intelligent-like “signal” in the genetic code is then a testable consequence of such scenario. Here we show that the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries.
Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin. Plausible ways of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to pass non-biological information.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791

 

[ArtieE]

The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries.
Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin. Plausible ways of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to pass non-biological information.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791

"I’ve read the paper by ShCherbak and Makukov, and by golly, the Discovery Institute flack really has accurately summarized the paper: it does explicitly and clearly claim to have identified evidence of design in the genetic code! That’s newsworthy in itself, that the creationists can accurately summarize a scientific paper…as long as the results conform to their ideological expectations.

Unfortunately, what they’ve so honestly described is good old honest garbage."
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/15/the-genetic-code-is-not-a-synonym-for-the-bible-code/

 

[URAVIP2ME]

or none of them unless the ONE who created/evolved them communicates and informs us which one.
Topic open for Theists and Atheists alike.
Regards

Something comes first.
First there was God from everlasting - Psalms 90:2
Before the material world there was the spirit or angelic realm - Job 38:7
Then, God used His ' power and strength ' ( energy ) to create the material realm. - Isaiah 40:26; Jeremiah 10:12; Jeremiah 32:17
So, God supplied the abundant high-density dynamic energy to start the creation of the material/physical realm.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Illogical. In the beginning of what? If God already existed "before" he created then you might as well say that something always existed and turned into our universe with no need for a god.You are confusing the "beginning" of our universe with the beginning of "something". "Something" has "always existed", it just turned into our universe for some natural reason we don't know yet.

According to Psalms 115:16 is found the natural reason. God gifted the earth to mankind.
Because we sin we die - Romans 6:7,23 - and we can Not resurrect oneself or another, so we need someone who can resurrect us.
Jesus can and will - Revelation 1:18. So, during Jesus' coming 1,000 year governmental rulership over earth the majority of mankind will have a healthy physical resurrection back to life on earth with the opportunity to live here forever on a beautified paradisaical earth. That is why the ' future tense ' is used at Acts of the Apostles 24:15 that ' there is going to be ' a resurrection.....

By Adam breaking God's Law, then, in effect, Adam was saying our world has No need for a god/God.
By breaking God's Law Adam set up to self-govern, or People Rule as being superior to God Rule.
God does Not interfere with our free-will choices, that is why it may appear there is No need for a god/God.
However, we are now urged to repent if we do Not want to perish ( be destroyed ) - 2 Peter 3:9; Psalms 92:7
We are nearing a soon coming ' time of separation ' on earth when humble 'sheep'-like people can remain alive on earth, and continue to live on earth right into the start of Jesus' coming millennium-long day of governing over earth when Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will usher in global Peace on Earth among men of goodwill.
- Matthew 25:31-32; Revelation 20:6; Revelation 5:9-10

 

[KBC1963]

"I’ve read the paper by ShCherbak and Makukov, and by golly, the Discovery Institute flack really has accurately summarized the paper: it does explicitly and clearly claim to have identified evidence of design in the genetic code! That’s newsworthy in itself, that the creationists can accurately summarize a scientific paper…as long as the results conform to their ideological expectations.
Unfortunately, what they’ve so honestly described is good old honest garbage."

unfortunately for you I am not in any way, shape or manner asserting a connection between the evidence and a specific intelligent designer and neither is the Discovery Institute so your reference holds no meaning in reference to this paper. I would also point out that my reference did not come from the ID site,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791

it is specifically from Science Direct;

What is ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s leading information solution for researchers, teachers, students, health care professionals and information professionals . It combines authoritative, full-text scientific, technical and health publications with smart, intuitive functionality so that you can stay informed in your field, and can work more effectively and efficiently.
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/sciencedirect

and Science direct is through Elsevier;

Elsevier is a world-leading provider of information solutions that help you make better decisions, deliver better care, and sometimes make groundbreaking discoveries in science, health, and technology.
We provide web-based, digital solutions — among them ScienceDirect, Scopus, Evolve, Knovel, Reaxys and ClinicalKey — and publish over 2,500 journals and more than 33,000 book titles. https://www.elsevier.com/

ID infers intelligence in the designer and nothing more. It is just as easy to think that life that existed prior to life on this planet may have seeded it here in a terraforming manner which would explain the evidences we see in the geological record of a variety of simple organisms suddenly appearing in the Avalon time and then a wide variety of new more complex organisms (totally unrelated to the Avalon organisms) showing up in the subsequent Cambrian time.

Since you can't seem to grasp the difference between ID and creationism I will reference the usual information available to any serious seeker of understanding;

Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection"...
...Greater clarity on the topic may be gained from a discussion of what ID is not considered to be by its leading theorists. Intelligent design generally is not defined the same as creationism, with proponents maintaining that ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines. ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature. As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature to the existence and attributes of God.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
...Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

 

[ArtieE]

First there was God from everlasting - Psalms 90:2

Why was there first "God from everlasting"? What's the reason for the existence of this god?

 

[ArtieE]

unfortunately for you I am not in any way, shape or manner asserting a connection between the evidence and a specific intelligent designer and neither is the Discovery Institute so your reference holds no meaning in reference to this paper.

Is the paper "good old honest garbage" or not and if so why do you quote it?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light
A vacuum might seem like empty space, but scientists have discovered a new way to seemingly get something from that nothingness (Emergence)

Emergence doesn't describe a process whereby something comes from nothing. And that's not what I responded to (again). I responded to a claim you made (rather, an insultingly dismissal of another poster) concerning the nature of causality.

Does Quantum Field Theory allow the Universe to emerge from nothing?

I saw the RG quote before. I'm a member of RG. I know how it works, and know the member in question (I believe he follows me, but I could be wrong; I haven't used RG in a while and I have too many followers to keep track of). In fact, I used it mostly as a distraction when I was bored: I would answer questions like the one posed, so I know how these works and I know the members who answered, but most importantly I know the actual, relevant RESEARCH and physics literature here. And, once more, I responded to a "claim" you made about "causal chains" or linear causality and my response listed examples which shows your characterization of causality doesn't hold.

If you don't feel I am responding to your post correctly then restate exactly what you mean to say.

I have already re-quoted what I responded to. You continue to ignore what I actually responded to despite the fact that I have, again, already re-stated this.

 

[Shad]

unfortunately for you I am not in any way, shape or manner asserting a connection between the evidence and a specific intelligent designer and neither is the Discovery Institute so your reference holds no meaning in reference to this paper. I would also point out that my reference did not come from the ID site,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791

Information transportation explains and refutes this paper

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code

I've attached the entire paper for those interested.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Why was there first "God from everlasting"? What's the reason for the existence of this god?

According to Scripture ' God 'IS' Love '- 1 John 4:16

God has or possesses the qualities or attributes of justice, wisdom, mercy and power but the essence of God is : Love.

So, God being and having love, God as a Living Being and Creator shares that love in the creation of both angelic and human persons.
God has life and as Heavenly Father ( father meaning -> Life Giver ) gives us life.

 

[KBC1963]

Is the paper "good old honest garbage" or not and if so why do you quote it?

I wonder.... why would an ID advocate quote a paper from a science journal that is promoting that some previous intelligence has left a sign of intelligent action in our dna? hmmmm yes that is quite strange isn't it, seeing as how ID isn't real science and all? I wonder how such a paper made it that far.

"What's most notable about this paper is the similarity in design reasoning between the authors and the more familiar advocates of intelligent design theory. No appeals to religion or religious texts; no identifying the designer; just logical reasoning from effect to sufficient cause. The authors even applied the "design filter" by considering chance and natural law, including natural selection, before inferring design.
If Darwinists want to go on equating intelligent design with creationism, they will now have to take on the very secular journal Icarus."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/a_wow_signal_of069941.html

 

[Shad]

I wonder.... why would an ID advocate quote a paper from a science journal that is promoting that some previous intelligence has left a sign of intelligent action in our dna? hmmmm yes that is quite strange isn't it, seeing as how ID isn't real science and all? I wonder how such a paper made it that far.

Their argument is solely based on SETA and ignorance of information transportation. Information transportation does not apply to radio signals thus the comparison is fallacious. You should also realize that bad papers get through. Your journal does not specialized in biology, it is not even one of the four primary fields it covers. No biological journal would publish this paper since it review board knows what information transportation is. The fact that it is not in circulation speaks for itself. No credible biologists accepts it. More so the very authors of the paper are not biologists. Their argument is just a God of the Gaps. If there is a pattern in DNA that can not be explained at this time it must be God. Yawn. Many papers are reviewed by a single individuals which does not even at minimum support a consensus. You seem to be lost on the idea of review after publication. The absence of secondary papers, reviews, and other publications in relevant biology journals speaks volumes. IE No one took it seriously or simple rejected the view proposed by non-expert ignorance of the subject they are discussing.

 

[KBC1963]

Information transportation explains and refutes this paper

Suuure it does.

 

[KBC1963]

Their argument is solely based on SETA and ignorance of information transportation. Information transportation does not apply to radio signals thus the comparison is fallacious. You should also realize that bad papers get through. Your journal does not specialized in biology, it is not even one of the four primary fields it covers. No biological journal would publish this paper since it review board knows what information transportation is. The fact that it is not in circulation speaks for itself. No credible biologists accepts it. More so the very authors of the paper are not biologists. Their argument is just a God of the Gaps. If there is a pattern in DNA that can not be explained at this time it must be God. Yawn. Many papers are reviewed by a single individuals which does not even at minimum support a consensus. You seem to be lost on the idea of review after publication. The absence of secondary papers, reviews, and other publications in relevant biology journals speaks volumes. IE No one took it seriously or simple rejected the view proposed by non-expert ignorance of the subject they are discussing.

ahhh yes its all just a mistake... and no one is taking it seriously.... and bad papers get through... it's just a god of the gaps argument..... all is normal here regardless of where the argument comes from or if its peer reviewed "it must be rejected" Got it.

 

[Jedster]

I don't like the concept of "first".

Indeed.
What is the first real number greater that 1?

 

[viole]

Based on what exactly?



The problem as I have stated numerous times now is that you have no basis in your experience for founding a rationale. If you disagree then define exactly what in our existence would allow for the assertion of an infinite regression of cause. Pretty plain.... pretty simple.
And again we can only posit finite chains because of our EXPERIENCE.... you do understand what is meant by experience right? The scientific method allows for rationales that have a basis in what we can EXPERIENCE. So if in our EXPERIENCE we can observe and test how causal chains function then you can form logical extrapolation based on that foundational EXPERIENCE for that which is not immediately observable. So, as I pointed out to you just above you need to show what exactly in our EXPERIENCE you can found a logic based argument for infinite regression of causality.



You could use it if I had no foundation to extrapolate with or you could attempt to infer that I was asserting a specific god but of course I have defined the foundational EXPERIENCES that allow for the logic of an uncaused cause and I have also pointed out that I would not posit a specifiable god, so, you are left right where you began with no evidence for your concept and an illogical attempt to assert equivalence for the mutually exclusive concepts.



Why can't you posit their existence as possible? The current concept of aliens asserts that they are intelligent right? this would fall within the extrapolation of a cause that could choose to act. For all we know god and aliens could be the same thing since we do not possess any specifics for their existence. In its essence any assertion for a god or aliens or whatever your mind can imagine is simply an inference to a cause that did not originate from this earth and has causal powers that it can choose to use or not. You can only cross the line of logic when you try to specify anything about it that is beyond what can be extrapolated from the evidence based on our experience.



I see you still don't get my point even after explaining it a number of times. So here is my answer to your assertion; BASED ON WHAT EXACTLY?

It's interesting to observe how much an intelligent agent will look past the obvious and plain explanations to attempt to force a concept to be viable even when every evidence from mans experience is staring you in the face and saying this is not how our reality works.

Based on my post #30 here ---> http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/lecture-is-science-the-only-way.180915/page-2

By the way, are you aware of the infinite paths Integral of Feynman?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

ahhh yes its all just a mistake... and no one is taking it seriously.... and bad papers get through... it's just a god of the gaps argument..... all is normal here regardless of where the argument comes from or if its peer reviewed "it must be rejected" Got it.

Go read the paper. The authors had to manipulate their data in order to fit into their numerology code. 19 out of 20 amino acids had 74 atoms in their standard blocks in group B. The one that does not has 73. So they took one atom from group R moved it to group B so the number was 74. Yet by doing so they created a fictional amino acid which does not exist in order to fulfill their numerology code. They made the data fit their presupposition thus their paper is garbage. Also they made the claim that this "code" can not be explained by nature or current knowledge thus their presupposition is right, this an argument from ignorance and God of the gaps (in this case it is aliens). Read what you link.

You seem lost on how reviews work. A review does not mean the paper is fact. Just that it passed the review of someone. This opens paper to review by the large population in a field, in this case biology. There are no follow up papers, there are no research projects. Heck it never was published in a biology journal. No one cared about this paper as it is based on false data. Such an idea if correct would of been a major topic within days yet this never happened. The reasons for this I provided above. It is a garbage paper made by people outside of the field in question. This happens with mathematicians when they attempt to reduce a subject they have no expertise in to pure math. The paper is no better than the Bible Code, Quran Code, etc. It is numerology made by crackpots.