How did it all begin?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You did not read it correctly. I specifically stated that there was no intelligence involved. For example place some realy muddy water in a glass. Leave it for a few hours. Have a look. You will find that it has already started to sort it self out into a more ordered system with froth on top, cleaner water in the middle, and heavier particles such as sand ...[text shortened]... I do have a BSc degree in mathematics).
Pattern and order [b]is not equal to intelligence.[/b]

For example place some realy muddy water in a glass.

Yes, gravity and hydrological sorting. What causes gravity: the energy drawing two masses together? Surely this system will have some intelligent laws built into it.

Infact in any totaly random system it is a mathematical probability almost a cirtainty that paterns will emerge.

Yes, but it still needs intelligence to discern the aesthetic appeal of this pattern or apply it to something else.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]1+1=2 is only an agreement made by us humans.

I could argue that these were concepts discovered and not created by humans. [/b]

Tricky talking about that. I have no idea how numbers were discovered. I seem to remember the Babylonians using base 12 for their system--by analogy with the cycle of observed time? Base 10 goes by analogy with our digits. My wild guess would be that human mathematics began with the abstraction of observed phenomena.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Three sentences later on the same page:
"The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward."

So what? I was just correcting Marauder who said that there was no explosion.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Tricky talking about that. I have no idea how numbers were discovered. I seem to remember the Babylonians using base 12 for their system--by analogy with the cycle of observed time? Base 10 goes by analogy with our digits. My wild guess would be that human mathematics began with the abstraction of observed phenomena.

Yeah. I did a bit of binary and hex - mind numbing. My point was that to sort abstact objects into rationally recognisable numerical order is a discovery of a concept, not it's creation. When Columbus stepped onto the New World, did he create it?

Originally posted by Halitose
My point was that to sort abstact objects into rationally recognisable numerical order is a discovery of a concept, not it's creation. When Columbus stepped onto the New World, did he create it?

This is interesting. Reminds me of scientists who find solutions in dream (there's a famous example of this that escapes me).

The land mass designated by "New World" is not an abstract concept. Another example?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
This is interesting. Reminds me of scientists who find solutions in dream (there's a famous example of this that escapes me).

The land mass designated by "New World" is not an abstract concept. Another example?

The land mass designated by "New World" is not an abstract concept. Another example?

Photons and neutrinos?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Are you saying that you don't have intelligence?

😀

I'm merely saying that my intelligence is the construction of smaller things. It's not necessarily created by some God. I always wonder who created Gods intelligence, if intelligence cannot arise from random events.

But I really should choose my words better. To say it's embarrasing that some of us still believe there is an origin intelligence (eternal and never-ending?) is perhaps not embarrasing if you look at the reference frame we have. But it's nothing less than curious to me.

Originally posted by Halitose
Photons and neutrinos?

Well, I don't know. Assuming they exist, are they really abstract concepts in the same way that "beauty", "truth", "the real" etc are abstract concepts? If I draw "1 + 1" on a piece of paper and ask you to show me this in nature, you will not be able to, although you will be able to show me two analogous objects (would they be identical?). Do you see what I'm getting at? Since the form "1 +1" does not literally exist in nature, wouldn't it be fair to say that it has been invented? (Best check up on the root meaning of "invent". You do it, I'm got Friday sickness--in Cape Town.)

Originally posted by stocken
😀

I'm merely saying that my intelligence is the construction of smaller things. It's not necessarily created by some God. I always wonder who created Gods intelligence, if intelligence cannot arise from random events.

But I really should choose my words better. To say it's embarrasing that some of us still believe there is an origin intelligence (e ...[text shortened]... barrasing if you look at the reference frame we have. But it's nothing less than curious to me.

Does it not make sense that God is the inifinite source of intelligence?

How else would you explain the existance of intelligence? Where did it come from?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So what? I was just correcting Marauder who said that there was [b]no explosion.[/b]

I believe Marauder was refering to your frequent use of the phrase "shooting out of an explosion" which gives the wrong picture altogether (which I suspect you or your source intended).
Another of your statements is
"The material shooting out of the Big Bang must have had enormous linear momentum, but the laws of mechanics show that it could not have had angular momentum, in other words this material would be flying straight out of the explosion centre."
This is totally wrong as the explosion you describe is not part of the theory at all. If space expands uniformly in all directions it does not impart any momentum of any kind to particles contained in it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe Marauder was refering to your frequent use of the phrase "shooting out of an explosion" which gives the wrong picture altogether (which I suspect you or your source intended).
Another of your statements is
"The material shooting out of the Big Bang must have had enormous linear momentum, but the laws of mechanics show that it could not have ...[text shortened]... rmly in all directions it does not impart any momentum of any kind to particles contained in it.

Sure the big bang has evolved a lot. Read this link and maybe you will realise what I mean. Believe it or not, the BIG BANG was first explained as an explosion, but of course it has been adapted a lot over time. This is only one of the ad hoc theories used to try and save the big bang some embaresment.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

Originally posted by dj2becker
Believe it or not, the BIG BANG was first explained as an explosion, but of course it has been adapted a lot over time.

One meaning of explosion according to google is:
a sudden great increase; "the population explosion"; "the information explosion"
The "sudden great increase" refered to in the Big Bang Theory is and increase in the volume of space and not and movement of particles outwards into some larger space. This has always been part of the Theory without exception. Much or your initial post describe the other kind of explosion and therefore invalidates most of your arguments.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Why would God's intelligence not be created?

Here's a link to get you started to the whole debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

1+1=2 is only an agreement made by us humans.

I could argue that these were concepts discovered and not created by humans.

I do appreciate your obvious intelligence, though. 🙂

Likewise.[/b]

Here's a link to get you started to the whole debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

Yes, but the cosmological argument assumes that there has to be a a first cause that is not itself caused by anything else, yet it accepts the fact that all events must have causes.

I find that confusing. If everything must have a cause, then everything must have a cause. To try and explain that, is much harder than to simply state that a first uncaused event started everything. But a first cause is nonetheless negated by the assumption that everything has a cause. (Am I making any sense, here?)

I could argue that these were concepts discovered and not created by humans.

I should think not. We use mathematics to describe phenomenons that we discover through observation. So, in a sense, mathematics is just another human language.

Moving on...

I agree that it takes intelligence to formulate and categorize the events that we observe. I agree that it takes intelligence to recognize patterns in nature and to formulate mathematical constructs to help describe those patterns. But that doesn't, in itself, say that intelligence is some construct built by another (divine) being.

I still think that universe and everything can have arose from random events. The cause for those events is admittedly very hard to explain, but the concept of God simply denies everything we can observe about cause and event. Thus, to me, it seems that we need to think much harder to come up with a viable theory about the origin of the universe.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Does it not make sense that God is the inifinite source of intelligence?

How else would you explain the existance of intelligence? Where did it come from?

Does it not make sense that God is the inifinite source of intelligence?

No, it does not. Not to me. Perhaps I'm a dipwit, but to me an explanation must take into account everything related to the concept we're trying to explain.

Infinite things are impossible things. They really are. They can only exist as thoughts in our heads. Nothing can be infinite for real. Sure, the universe: where does it end? If we're built up of smaller pieces, then those smaller pieces will have to built up by smaller pieces and so on and so on. It's not you having trouble describing your belief, because you accept infinity. I have trouble explaining my belief, simply because I don't accept infinity.

The question of the origin of universe is hard to answer (perhaps impossible), but the origin of intelligence, seems to me easy to explain using only the knowledge we can gather from our surroundings. Everything does fall into patterns when left alone, and any intelligence requires patterns to function. Otherwise, intelligence cannot be. (I think.) I don't think our intelligence is constructed. It is evolving. And it is because the necessary components to provoke it exists around us. It's a natural chain of events leading to conclusions that constitute the very essence of intelligence (imo), and natural chain of event is very easy for us to comprehend (maybe because we're made through the same process).

\[Edit]: Or so I believe

Originally posted by dj2becker
Sure the big bang has evolved a lot. Read this link and maybe you will realise what I mean. Believe it or not, the BIG BANG was first explained as an explosion, but of course it has been adapted a lot over time. This is only one of the ad hoc theories used to try and save the big bang some embaresment.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

This is only one of the ad hoc theories used to try and save the big bang some embaresment.

Why is it embarrasing to admit you're wrong and to seek new answers when your theories are questioned on a solid foundation? Is it not more embarrasing to stick with old ideas when they're placed in the light of doubt?

We learn more and more all the time, and we can only keep learning by accepting the knowledge we accumulate for what it is. Sometimes it directly contradicts older beliefs, but that's no reason to not consider new ideas.