Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose

According to science our universe (space-time) has a beginning (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9403004).This 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 www.netzarim.co.il)

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: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/searc...er%20arguments)

Anders Branderud

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

According to science our universe (space-time) has a beginning

Many theories don't agree with that. First hole.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

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.

Not necessarily, because the fundamental law that everything has a cause might have been created with space-time. Second hole.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

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.)

Fact: I like peanut butter.
Assume: There is no chocolate factory.
Ergo: There is no peanut butter.
Fact: There is peanut butter.

Things go into more than two directions. Things aren't always yes and no, they can be north, south, and west too - sometimes even east! Third hole.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

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 www.netzarim.co.il)

I think it's well known that the torah wasn't created at the start of times.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

The fact that the Creator is perfect implies that He isn’t self-contradictory.

A creator being perfect is full of contradictions by itself.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

Therefore any religion, and all religions contradicts each other (otherwise they would be identical), that contradicts Torah is the antithesis to the Creator.

Prove that if your above trashtalk is correct; that the Torah is the 'correct' scripture.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

The most common counter arguments are answered here: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/searc...er%20arguments)

Anders Branderud

There's a debate section.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

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.

The laws of physics are somewhat shaky within the first Planck second. We can't claim to know exactly what happened in the instant of the Big Bang.

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.)

Big flaw there. You assume because you think there must have been a beginning to the universe, then there must have been a perfect Creator to start it.

Now, why do you think this creator must be perfect, exactly? How do the other attributes that you attach to it, ie. loving, just, intelligent, etc... follow on from being the prime cause?

They don't - rather, these are values that you want the creator to have, so you attach them to it.

If anything, such a complex entity deserves an explanation of how it came to be in its own right, so it doesn't neatly explain the Prime Cause problem at all - what created god?

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.

Who says the universe is perfectly orderly?

An orderly—"not capricious," as Einstein put it—Creator (also implying Just)

And how does "just" follow on from "orderly?"

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.

This argument is getting more and more flawed by the minute. Who said anything about humans specifically being god's subjects? That does not logically follow from your original premise.

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 www.netzarim.co.il)

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.

More and more flaws in the argument. Why have you suddenly assumed that the Torah, and not some other religion, is "Life's Instruction Manual?" Humankind has existed for a far greater span of time than Judaism.

So, is it because "Torah" translates to "Instruction"? That's like claiming that the DVD instructions in front of me, because they contain the word "Instruction", must be God's divine word.


I've had to rush this, so I haven't said as much as I'd like.

Googling OP's user-name shows that he's started this thread a great number of times on a great number of forums and never came back to reply to his objectors.

This is an advertisement for the dude's blog. Debating is a waste of time...

Originally Posted by Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not A Christian (1927)

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject."

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

Googling OP's user-name shows that he's started this thread a great number of times on a great number of forums and never come back to reply to his objectors.

This is an advertisement for the dude's blog. Debating is a waste of time...

Oh.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

According to science our universe (space-time) has a beginning (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9403004).This 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.

Ah yes, the favourite argument of St. Thomas Aquinas.

However, this does not prove an intelligent creator. It makes it likely that there was a first cause (it doesn't prove it, since logic is part of this universe and may, or may not, have applied before this universe was around.) but it does not prove a sentient creator. All it proves is that something (such as a chemical reaction) created the universe.

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.

Woah, woah, woah, what? Chaos can create order (Have a look-see at a crystal sometime). Further, order is not innately perfect. In a perfectly orderly universe nothing would ever change or move. We would never think, never feel, never live. That's a far cry from my definition of perfect.

We need a fine balance of both chaos and order in order to be alive.

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.

Orderly also does not mean just. Killing everyone who sneezes is orderly; it is not just. Further, you've yet to establish that the first cause is sentient or sapient and, as such, cannot conclude that it had any purpose.

Further, one cannot conclude that explaining things is innately orderly.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

Googling OP's user-name shows that he's started this thread a great number of times on a great number of forums and never came back to reply to his objectors.

This is an advertisement for the dude's blog. Debating is a waste of time...

I kinda figured, given the links and so-on, but meh. May as well debunk him for the lurkers out there.

logic =/= pattern

pattern =/= justice


The intentions are well met.

however, the words are not always mutually exclusive, nor are they always mutually inclusive.

bending the words of the English language to better suit your patterns is "speaking in tongues", if I may so use the expression.

Having said that:

This thread makes me want to eat bbq'ed cow-tongue.

back on topic:

when you use a word that lacks a definitive answer, it usually caries two or more meanings.

when the context highlights the true meaning of the word when speaking in truths, the unnecessary diction is cast aside and energy is lost.

when the context highlights one truth meaning, the word merely is.

when the context highlights two truth meanings, the word is good.

when the context highlights multiple relevant meanings of said word, the word kicks ass and becomes a positive feedback loop.

There is energy (and thus power) in words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

though shalt not take the ***** name in vein

*edit*

*removes a speck of dust from your eye*

*points at his own eye, encrusted in saw-dust*

Hello to y’all!

No, the reason I posted my blog was not to advertise, but to answer the most common counter arguments. The arguments you wrote as replies – I have gotten them before and answered them.

Quote: “The laws of physics are somewhat shaky within the first Planck second. We can't claim to know exactly what happened in the instant of the Big Bang. “

Quote 2: “If anything, such a complex entity deserves an explanation of how it came to be in its own right, so it doesn't neatly explain the Prime Cause problem at all - what created god?”

My reply: And by that argument you want to invalidate the proof of an Intelligent Creator. Let’s see if your argument holds.

None known scientific phenomena contradicts the scientific principle of causality. It is a scientific principle with is foundation on many observations. By induction causality is regarded to be true for all of time-space.

It is a law of formal logic that a person stating the unknown has to prove his/her departure from the known state. The known state is that everything in this physical universe follows the scientific law of causality.

The unknown state is: “The laws of causality are not applicable before one plank-second after Big Bang.” Since this unknown state is a clear departure from the known state and contradicts science; the person who says there is scientific phenomena that contradicts causality has to prove his/her point (i.e. he/she has the burden of proof), not merely assume it.

A common counter argument to the proof I have presented for the existence of a Creator is that He also must have a cause. To state this is as nonsensical as to say that the Creator is bound by the gravitational theory.
The proof I have presented proves that the Prime Cause is the origin of all the laws of nature, including causality. To say that the Creator is bound by causality, is as nonsensical as to say that a computer programmer is dependent on (or becomes a part of) the laws and boundaries in his
program that he/she has created.

According to the formal logic principle of burden of proof the person stating that the Prime Cause needs a cause has the burden of proof. The known state is what I have proved: “There exists a non-dimensional Creator external to timespace, Who is the Prime Cause to the timespace.”

To claim that there exists a cause to the Prime Cause is a clear departure from the known facts. 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 to that conclusion through deduction. How could there be a cause – which requires timespace – to a Creator external to timespace? That is questions that the atheist must answer. This argument that I have presented is one of the most common logical fallacies used as a counter argument to the existence of a Creator.

Have a nice weekend!
Anders Branderud

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

My reply: And by that argument you want to invalidate the proof of an Intelligent Creator. Let’s see if your argument holds.

None known scientific phenomena contradicts the scientific principle of causality. It is a scientific principle with is foundation on many observations. By induction causality is regarded to be true for all of time-space.

It is a law of formal logic that a person stating the unknown has to prove his/her departure from the known state. The known state is that everything in this physical universe follows the scientific law of causality.

The unknown state is: “The laws of causality are not applicable before one plank-second after Big Bang.” Since this unknown state is a clear departure from the known state and contradicts science; the person who says there is scientific phenomena that contradicts causality has to prove his/her point (i.e. he/she has the burden of proof), not merely assume it.

I'd disagree.

My point is, we simply don't know what happened in the moment of the Big Bang, before the separation of all of the fundamental forces. The burden of proof is not on me to show that causality is no longer applicable, since I'm not actually assuming anything. As scientists, we try not to make assumptions, but rather approach a problem with an open mind.

Rather, I'm pointing out that you are basing your logic on physics that hold true after the Big Bang, so this is a potential flaw in your argument. You're the one presenting the proof, so the onus is actually on you to say why you think causality is still applicable, in a time where the laws of physics are as yet unknown to us. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that such a Prime Cause should have all of the other attributes that you give to it, such as compassion and love.

Also, what of my other points that I made? Why, for instance, is Judaism the true religion, and not Islam, Christianity or Hinduism?

According to the formal logic principle of burden of proof the person stating that the Prime Cause needs a cause has the burden of proof. The known state is what I have proved: “There exists a non-dimensional Creator external to timespace, Who is the Prime Cause to the timespace.”

To claim that there exists a cause to the Prime Cause is a clear departure from the known facts. 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 to that conclusion through deduction. How could there be a cause – which requires timespace – to a Creator external to timespace? That is questions that the atheist must answer. This argument that I have presented is one of the most common logical fallacies used as a counter argument to the existence of a Creator.

To say that there exists a complex Prime Cause for the universe is also a departure from the known facts, since no-one has ever managed to definitively prove the existence of an intelligent Creator.

Have a nice weekend!
Anders Branderud

You too! :3

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

None known scientific phenomena contradicts the scientific principle of causality. It is a scientific principle with is foundation on many observations. By induction causality is regarded to be true for all of time-space.

so perhaps causality didn't apply before time-space?

It is a law of formal logic that a person stating the unknown has to prove his/her departure from the known state. The known state is that everything in this physical universe follows the scientific law of causality.

so perhaps causality didn't apply before this physical universe?

A common counter argument to the proof I have presented for the existence of a Creator is that He also must have a cause. To state this is as nonsensical as to say that the Creator is bound by the gravitational theory.

if the Creator is able to interact with the physical Universe, the Creator must be a part of the physical Universe. If the Creator is a part of the physical Universe, the Creator is bound by the laws of the physical Universe.

*stuff*

Have a nice weekend!
Anders Branderud

you have yet to actually prove the Prime Cause.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

No, the reason I posted my blog was not to advertise, but to answer the most common counter arguments. The arguments you wrote as replies – I have gotten them before and answered them.

Well, I will disagree as you have posted the exact same paragraphs in various other seemingly random forums around the interwebs. As mmmmm_PIE said, simply googling your user name turns up dozens of forums and all the ones I looked at had the exact same thing you had here verbatim.

Though you did come back for some reason, so... you got me on that one.

Anyways,

The whole causation argument fails miserably. And not for any indepth scientific reason, but for the simple logical fact that, the creator himself must be created. Simply stating that since everything must have a cause and that a "Creator" inspired the big bang or whatever theory you prefer is simply pushing the goal post back. And while that argument may work in a church where all anyone wants to hear about is "the creator", in the logical world, if one implies that everything has a cause, then you must also prove the cause of the creator.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

None known scientific phenomena contradicts the scientific principle of causality. It is a scientific principle with is foundation on many observations. By induction causality is regarded to be true for all of time-space.

It is a law of formal logic that a person stating the unknown has to prove his/her departure from the known state. The known state is that everything in this physical universe follows the scientific law of causality.

That's up for debate, actually. (PDF)

The unknown state is: “The laws of causality are not applicable before one plank-second after Big Bang.” Since this unknown state is a clear departure from the known state and contradicts science; the person who says there is scientific phenomena that contradicts causality has to prove his/her point (i.e. he/she has the burden of proof), not merely assume it.

A common counter argument to the proof I have presented for the existence of a Creator is that He also must have a cause. To state this is as nonsensical as to say that the Creator is bound by the gravitational theory.

The proof I have presented proves that the Prime Cause is the origin of all the laws of nature, including causality. To say that the Creator is bound by causality, is as nonsensical as to say that a computer programmer is dependent on (or becomes a part of) the laws and boundaries in his
program that he/she has created.

It's almost as silly as to claim that the natural laws which exist after the Big Bang must have existed 'before' the Big Bang.

According to the formal logic principle of burden of proof the person stating that the Prime Cause needs a cause has the burden of proof.

Rather, the one claiming that the origin of the Universe must have been guided by an intelligent designer because the origin must follow causaly must provide proof to their claims. If they can not provide proof that the 'pre-universal' state must be causal then a heavy dose of Occam's Razor can be applied, and we can assume that a creator does not exist, and that causality, in the traditional sense, is not required in this situation.

In actuality, progression in cosmology and physics have only weakened these types of claims:

Originally Posted by Stephen Hawking, Der Spiegel

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.

Originally Posted by Anders

]No, the reason I posted my blog was not to advertise, but to answer the most common counter arguments. The arguments you wrote as replies – I have gotten them before and answered them.

I apologize... though I hope you can see why leaving a clear trail of posts identical to your first across so many forums suggests against your commitment to debate. I'm moved to find that if your not advertising then your evangelizing - and your discourse will suffer either way - but I'll give ya the benefit of the doubt. I've skimmed your blog, and I hope I can provide some novel arguments (though I'll have to invoke some QM, as it has gotten such a poor treatment from your detractors up until now ;P). If you'd be interested in discussing any of the following objections, let me know,

1) Considering the use of induction in a logical proof, citing Hume's Treatise Concerning Human Understanding, I argue that there is no First Philosophy, that any argument for the validity of Induction as a rational process is circular, that the true foundation of human science is human instinct, and that - in the absence of special creation [and therefore of possible circularity] - the ability of instinct to track truth is the limited result of biological selection. The conclusion is that induction cannot - in any circumstance - provide a "proof" of the divine.

2) Considering your vocal belief in hard determinism and your apparent commitment to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, citing the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations of QM, I argue that the amount of information in the universe is adeterministically increasing with time: violating sufficient reason and discrediting hard determinism. The conclusion is that our universe is more complicated than its cause, and may not be orderly, whatever the nature of that cause.

3) Considering your treatment of space-time, causality, and a "zero-dimensional" entity, citing relativity, thermodynamics, basic Linear Algebra and maybe some Leibniz, I'd like to discuss your cosmology in more detail. Out of the gate, I'd like to know whether you believe causality is physical-time dependent (or vice versa) or whether they might have independent treatments.