Proof of an Intelligent Creator and His purpose

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by andersbranderud, Oct 29, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. andersbranderud

    andersbranderud New Member

    According to science our universe (space-time) has a beginning ( paper is written by the cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of the Tufts university and Arvind Bonde.)

    It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause. Since space-time has a beginning there was a first physical occurrence. Causality requires that the first physical occurrence had a cause. Causality and the fact that space-time has a beginning implies that this Prime Cause is non-dimensional and independent of space-time, i.e. a Creator.

    To conclude the above paragraphs:
    Fact: No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause.
    Assume: There is no Prime Cause (Creator).
    Ergo: There is no universe.
    Fact: There is a universe.
    Therefore: the statement that was assumed is proven to be a false statement by reduction ad absurdum (proof by disproof).
    (Since "There is no Creator" is proven false, the opposite is true: There is a Creator.)

    Being logically consistent (orderly), our (to say perfectly-orderly would be a tautology) orderly universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Orderly; i.e. Perfect. An orderly—"not capricious," as Einstein put it—Creator (also implying Just), therefore, necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind.

    It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary to His Torah, see below) without any means of rapproachment until millennia after the first couple in recorded history as well as millennia after Abraham, Moses and the prophets. Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Torah —which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged). (Some of the text is a quote from

    The fact that the Creator is perfect implies that He isn’t self-contradictory. Therefore any religion, and all religions contradicts each other (otherwise they would be identical), that contradicts Torah is the antithesis to the Creator.

    The most common counter arguments are answered here: arguments)

    Anders Branderud
  2. Chargette

    Chargette Well-Known Member

    This is too complex for me.
  3. Aeterna

    Aeterna Account Closed

    "According to science" is vague. Who is making this claim? Second, the source you claim is refuting Steady-State theory, which was superseded by the big bang.

    This is false. Physics never speaks in absolutes, it only states that almost everything has a cause.

    Again, this is false. In fact, the law of conservation of energy could easily be turned in to say that the universe is infinite.

    Again, this is false. Science, the study of nature, can't imply something that is supernatural, or out of nature.

    Invalid reasoning: Everything has a cause because nothing can exist without a cause is circular logic.

    Science can't assume this because it would be outside the domain of science.

    Non-sequitur, the logic doesn't follow.

    Sorry, reductio ad absurdum means "reduction to the absurd", not "proof by disproof". Besides which, your disproof is logically invalid.

    Actually, even if your logic was valid (it's not), your argument would have been "The universe is caused". This doesn't translate in to "the universe had a creator", because what caused the universe could very well be a natural force.

    First of all, you're making a huge set of logical leaps.

    Allow me to sum them up numerically:

    1. Your first proposition is circular reasoning, in that you say that the universe must be caused because it can not be uncaused because the universe must have a cause. This logic doesn't support itself.

    2. Assuming your logic DID support itself, the most you can establish is that the universe must have a cause. Since you assert that this cause must be outside of the realm of science (and therefore out of the realm of logic), it is impossible to know about what caused the universe. Without knowing what caused the universe, we can not posit that a creator exists.

    3. Assuming your logic DID support itself, AND we could know about what created the universe, we still couldn't say anything about the creator with full certainty because we have no method of verifying what we know, alas Descartes' Brain-in-a-Jar theory.

    No it doesn't. Who says that perfection implies non-contradiction? That's an arbitrary human standard, not constructed by logic.

    Do you really expect someone to go through all of that? It's a large quantity of logical absurdities. First of all, anyone who claims a positive is the one who has to supply the evidence, not the only who simply remains skeptical. For instance, "There is not a single observable fact that indicates that there exists a cause to the Prime Cause and neither is it possible to derive that conclusion using deduction" misses the point of the Occam's Razor refutation of God. You can't argue that a Prime Cause exists, and that Prime Cause is a creator, without having to ask "what created a creator?".

    I'd really suggest you take Philosophy 100 and Logic 100. That should help you out a lot.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 29, 2009
  4. Tobes

    Tobes Well-Known Member

    This isn't proof anders, this is a theory. And the problem as I see it with this is that just because there is a cause, doesn't mean it's a creator. It could be the start or rebirth of a cycle, it could be a chemical reaction, and yes, it could be a creator, but that is only a possibility. There are many theories out there about the creation of the universe, and I am yet to fully believe any of them. I have read about multiverse theory, which states that there are a large number/infinite amount of universes, and to cross universes would be impossible.

    Now considering this, a creator could not come from another universe and create our own, and likewise a creator could not make our universe without being a part of it, and creating himself in the process. So that would mean that if there is a creator (intelligent or otherwise), that is completely seperate from the uni/multiverse that created it all, that we call God. I would find this believable, if there weren't hundreds of gods before him. There have been many stories of saviours and messiahs and the rest, many of them following a distinct pattern (virgin birth, performed miracles, death and resurrection etc), but few have actual historical account of their existence.

    As well as this, if there is a creator and he is seperate from our universe it means that he cannot interact with it, unless he can break the laws of physics in the process, although some would say he can. Whether he does, that is another matter. Now I'm not going to be so arrogant as to say there is no creator, but I know that your argument doesn't hold any water to be stated as proof that there is.
  5. Menchi

    Menchi Well-Known Member

    Who created the creator?
  6. Ordep

    Ordep Well-Known Member

    (the following post will be a bit sarcastic since well... this kind of stuff creates that reaction in me)

    Ok, so I was about to start tearing this argument limb by limb but the I saw that Aeterna beat me to it (who, btw, shows much more logic and philosophycal capabilities than my economic brain can ever hope to achieve) so instead let me just throw my two cents into this matter:

    First of all, something I never quite understood: I've studied some pretty mind breaking subjects in college (and still do) like microeconomics and statistics, consumers reactions and etc, and usually both the books and the teachers tend to make the textes as less complicated as possible, in order to maximize the number of people who can follow. Makes sense.

    Only here I see the reverse. Every "God exists" argument I've read over the years (and I'm always on the lookout for those) uses as much intellectual and philosophycal jargon as they can manage to pile up inside the text. I wonder if you're aware your arguments are always always flawed and thus try to sink those who aren't willing to read your document over and over again in a panoply of circular arguments and jargon. Aren't you aware that the best theories are the simplest ones?

    I mean, look at what you wrote, I'm a manager, not a philosopher, thus I like things simple and fast to understand, thus let me shriken your whole argument into a couple of lines:

    "Everything that happens, happens because it has a cause, nothing can be without cause, so the very first action taken must have been taken by a Creator, thus proving it's existence"

    See? Now everyone can understand what a hell you're talking about. Now, obviously you'll say that I left proof and other mumbo jumbo out, but seriously, your whole theory is right there, there's no need to call in absurdum here (which, as Aeterna mentioned means reduction to the absurd or, proving that X is true by proving that nothing but X can happen)

    Now onto the argument itself, it's amusing how you make such a leap between "everything has a cause" to "thus we prove God exists". Really? If we were immortal and had all the time in the world, I'd challenge you to sit in a room with me and we'd spend a century finding the cause for every single event in the world (2 centuries maybe?) and I'm pretty positive not once would I have to mention God. And when we'd reach the very first occurence men is aware of, which according to today's information is most likely the Big Bang, I'd just defend that The Big Bang is just a theory and thus it's impossible to be totally correct about what caused it, just like we don't know what may have preceeded it, you're building your ivory tower in shifting sands, and they sink preety fast.

    The you bring forth the Life's intruction manual stuff and that I'm not even going to touch, considering how outlandish it is. The thing about Torah's translation I've seen over a hundred times. Those words are old beyond any accurate record keeping, thus it's impossible to be totally sure about it's real meaning, and that makes it such an easy target for these half-baked theories.

    And even if the Torah did mean Instruction as you claim, so what? It still remains a book written by men for men, what does that prove?

    I don't need tons of jargon and intellectual talk to racionalize my views on religion. I just need basic law:

    There is no solid proof that God does in fact exist and interacts with our world in any way, thus, just like law says "innocent until found guilty" I say "Non-existant until found". In the meantime, just like we can't be absolutely sure if someone's innocent or guilty (and we never are), we'll never be sure about the existence of God. Deal with it.

    But in your defence, I'll actually say that it doesn't seem like you're here to sell a book or something... *looks at how many posts you have* or are you?
  7. Datura

    Datura Well-Known Member

    Just because no one can fully explain the origin of the universe does not mean there is a creator. You coming to that conclusion is one thing, but to be so brazen as to label this "creator" perfect and masculine is reaching.

    Don't pretend to be a proponent of physics when you clearly are not... for there to be a creator, as you surmise, it has to have a cause according to your fact. Well the popular line used by creationists is, "No one created God; he has always been." Hence, god defies physics. The laws of physics are thrown out the window once a creator god enters the scene.
  8. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    please please please learn to think beyond primary school levels, there was no "before" before the "big bang" as time was essentially created as the singularity inflated. With there being no "before" there can be nothing to "cause" if you are thinking along linear timelines.
    You have shown amazingly naive thinking especially as hundreds of the greatest minds that have been working on the creation of the universe and they've apparently missed the most obvious feature being god....derrrrr!
    Using grossly false dichotomies does not make your reasoning sound or logical. You also claim order!!!! There is no such thing, the universe is in chaos, it only appears orderly to us as we are a product of this disorder. Just remember that our climate is currently far from ordered, due to life. Life is putting out more oxygen than is naturally being absorbed by the earth through oxidisation, the natural state of earth without life is very different from now and its only due to extremophiles in early life that we have the climate which is far from "natural" equilibrium which can sustain the current forms of life.
  9. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member

    So there you have it, OP. The nothing 'inflated'. :blink: That's you told.
  10. lonercarrot

    lonercarrot Well-Known Member

    The thing is, a lot of Christians like spreading this shit to support their religion. And I think that's what you are doing OP. But even if this stuff were true and undisputable (which it isn't), it in no way supports their own religion or God.

    I don't really care if something actually created the universe, what I care about is that it wasn't anything associated with Christianity or any other earthly religion.
    Does a "god" exist? I don't know. Does YOUR god exist? No.
  11. Robin

    Robin Guest

    I found this charming website:

    I don't prescribe to any religion, except I have a fondness for the teachings of Bhuddism, but then that didn't start as a religion.

    I do believe in God and I believe Jesus died on the cross, whether he was the son of God or just an amazing individual I don't think I will ever know.

    However, religion has pretty much butchered it's way through history, even now, somewhere in the world people are dying because people have been talk if they kill them then they will go to heaven.

    If a book teaches you to hate, marginalise, subjugate, make a state more important than an individual then it was written by a man. Most religions agree on an all encompassing Go or Gods filled with compassion, compassion doesn't kill people, people kill people.
  12. Mortal Moon

    Mortal Moon Well-Known Member

    So... this individual registered last October, posted nothing for an entire year, then suddenly shows up out of nowhere to copy/paste a fairly standard Proof Of God rant, with a link to his own blog full of preemptive rejoinders to potential criticism of said rant? At no point indicating who he is or why he's here?

    I find this perplexing. :blink:
  13. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    The singularity inflated.
  14. Robin

    Robin Guest

    I wonder what would happen if a singularity inflated and not faded :O
  15. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member

    Yes, but that is what a singularity essentially is - nothing.
  16. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    well it was sort of EVERYTHING, not nothing. In a superhot state. During inflation it cooled down and eventually it cooled to a point that matter was first created.
    Its all out there for people to read.
  17. Mortal Moon

    Mortal Moon Well-Known Member

    Um... no, that's not really accurate at all.
  18. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member

    A singularity is a zero-dimensional point; it is nothing. How can it simultaneously be nothing and everything? It isn't anything, it cannot contain anything, as -things- have dimensions and it has none. How can a 'superhot state' be present when temperature is the movement of particles hitting against one another and there aren't any particles, moving or otherwise, as a zero-dimensional point isn't anything, nor can it contain anything, for the reason expressed in the opening few sentences ?

    It may well be 'all out there for people to read', but as it's all guff, why should they bother wasting their time doing so?

    Um... why not?
  19. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    Hundreds of the greatest minds all work on the same thing, vast majority believe certain things to be considered fact. They know the physics, more importantly the maths and have supercomputers and machinery to replicate and observe experiments and all along they were totally forgetting that over 100 years of work has been bollocks cos some member of the public with an attitude says theyre wrong.
    Its all guff after all, the physics and maths they use only make your phone, your computer work, allows to to make stars in large chambers, look at individual atoms and send radio waves faster than light. It allows us to manipulate time in a lab, teleport single atoms and make blind people see with microchips working with their brain!
    Its all guff, theyve been working their whole lives to fool you.......
    suppose its easier to just answer with "god did it" for some people eh?
    Just because you dont understand the science does not make your ignorance an argument.
  20. Robin

    Robin Guest

    Maybe it's nothing enough to be a new universe? I've always liked that idea, just dreamin' as usual lol :grouphug: Haven't been watching this thread very much but I do like some of the replies I've seen very much :)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.